Mrs Evelyn V Bliss

Preliminary Matters

Hearing in Private

1.          Mr Olphert, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to be heard in private. He provided a skeleton argument that addressed this issue. The application has been made as a result of an Order made by the Family Court dated 22 January 2021 that allowed disclosure of documents that form part of the bundle for these proceedings. A recital to the Order requires the HCPC to apply to a panel to request that the hearing is held in private.

2.          The Panel was referred to the Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private and Rule 10(1) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that to depart from the principle of open justice it had to be satisfied that it was in the interests of justice or necessary to protect the private life of the service users. The Panel was also advised that it ought not go behind an order of a superior court.  The Panel accepted the legal advice it received.

3.          The Panel considered the HCPC’s skeleton argument, submissions and the recital to the Order dated 22 January 2021. The Order stated that it was being made:

“UPON the applicant confirming that it will apply to the relevant panel(s) for any fitness to practise proceedings to be heard in private

AND UPON the applicant indicating that any decision arising from disciplinary proceedings shall be appropriately anonymised or redacted if published”

4.          The Panel decided that it was appropriate to hold the entire hearing in private taking into account the Order of the Court but also the fact that the private life of Person A, so inextricably linked with the proceedings, needed protecting.

Application to Amend the Allegation

5.          An application was made on behalf of the HCPC to amend the allegations before the Panel. The amendment sought, was to Particular 7 of the allegation to replace Criminal Injury Compensation Authority with Social Services.

6.          The proposed amendment had been notified to the Registrant in advance of the hearing and had been agreed by her.

7.          The Panel listened to the submissions made on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice given by the Legal Assessor.

8.          The Panel considered whether there would be any detriment to the Registrant in allowing the amendment. The Panel was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to allow the amendment as it accurately reflected the evidence before it and there was no detriment to the Registrant as she has been notified on 10 November 2021 of the proposes amendment and consented to it.

9.          Therefore particular 7 will read as follows:

7. On 18 February 2018, in a letter to Criminal Injury Compensation Authority [CICA] Social Services you gave a ‘clinical opinion’ that Child 1 suffered from ADHD and Autism despite not having formally assessed Child 1.

Disposal By Consent

10.       The Panel had before it a 903-page bundle which included a skeleton argument prepared on behalf of the HCPC and a reflective piece prepared by the Registrant.

11.       Mr Olphert on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to dispose of this matter by way of consent and to impose a 9-month suspension on the basis that the Registrant accepts that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct.

12.       Mr Olphert submitted that the Registrant has demonstrated insight by fully reflecting on her previous failings and by giving detailed information about the personal and professional circumstances that led to these allegations. He submitted that the Registrant has expressed remorse and understanding of the importance of maintaining professional boundaries within her job. She has also shown significant insight into her actions and has provided within her reflective an action plan for her future practise as a Registered Psychologist. On that basis he submitted there is a low risk of the Registrant repeating this misconduct.

13.       Mr Olphert submitted that the public interest is sufficiently protected by the Registrant being suspended from practising as a psychologist for a period of 9 months and such an order is not detrimental to the wider public interest.

14.       Therefore, the Panel was invited to the view that the sanction agreed between the parties is a proportionate way to dispose of these matters.

15.       Mr Somerville, on behalf of the Registrant, fully endorsed the submissions made by Mr Olphert and commended the consensual disposal to the Panel.

16.       The Panel was referred to the HCPTS’s Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent.

17.       The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that the Practice Note makes clear that the HCPC’s overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public. With that in mind, the Panel should not agree to a case being resolved by consent unless it is satisfied that firstly, the appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and secondly, doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

18.       She reminded the Panel that disposal by consent does not affect its powers or the range of sanctions available. It is merely a process by which the HCPC and the registrant concerned may propose what they regard as an appropriate outcome to the case.

19.       The Panel still has the option of rejecting a proposal for disposal by consent. Before considering the proposal, a panel should satisfy itself that the HCPC:

a.     has provided a clear, appropriately detailed and objectively justified explanation within its supporting skeleton argument of why the matter is suitable for disposal by consent on the terms set out in the draft Consent Order; and,

b.     has made clear to the registrant concerned that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to a Consent Order being approved.

20.       The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had regard to all of the evidence presented to it, the submissions and skeleton argument prepared on behalf of the HCPC and reflective piece submitted on behalf of the Registrant.

21.       The Panel was mindful that the task before it today was to determine whether to conclude the case on an expedited basis upon the terms of the draft Consent Order put before it or reject that proposal and set the case down for a full hearing.

22.       The Panel noted that the Registrant has signed the Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma on 7 July 2022 confirming that:

a.     she admits the facts of the allegation;

b.     she admits that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct;

c.     that she has read the HCPTS Practice Note on “Disposal of Cases by Consent”; and

d.     that she agrees to a Suspension.

23.       The Panel considered the evidence before it. The Panel noted the statement prepared by Kay Leonard of McAlister Family Law. Ms Leonard explained that representatives at court during the Family Proceedings agreed that there should be a referral to the HCPC.

24.        The Panel had regard to HHJ Bancroft’s redacted Judgment dated 6 December 2019.

25.       The Panel considered the Registrant’s admissions to the facts alleged and concluded that the allegations were supported by the evidence provided. The Panel concluded that these were serious allegations.

26.       In these circumstances the Panel considered that there was sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude that the facts amounted to misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. 

27.       The Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanction Policy including para 121 which says that “a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register.”

28.       The guidance notes that the types of cases where suspension is appropriate will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

29.       The Panel agreed that the Registrant’s misconduct was a serious breach of the behaviour expected of her by her regulatory body. Her conduct was such that it attracted criticism of a Judge during Family Court Proceedings in which she gave evidence. It was aggravated by the fact that Person A was clearly vulnerable.

30.       The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s reflective piece. In it the Registrant had reflected on each of the allegations. The Panel noted that this was one of the most considered and comprehensive reflective pieces that it had come across. Within in it the Registrant accepted that she had crossed professional boundaries and that her fitness to practise was impaired. The Panel noted that Registrant had taken on board the full extent of the allegations against her. The Registrant accepted that texting blurred the boundaries of her professional relationship with Person A. The Registrant has since stopped corresponding with service users by text.

31.       Through her analysis of the separate allegations the Panel accepted that the Registrant had identified what had been wrong with her practice and was reassured that it would not happen again.

32.       The Panel also noted that majority of particulars of the allegations took place between 2012 and 2013 and that just one Service User had been involved. The Panel noted that there had been no other issues with the Registrant’s practice.  

33.       The Panel had regard to the undoubtedly serious nature of the misconduct but recognised the level of insight that the Registrant has shown. The Panel agree with the HCPC submissions that the issues are unlikely to be repeated due to the changes that the Registrant has described and implemented to her practice.

34.       The Panel accepted that the proposal for consensual disposal was reached as a result of proper and well considered discussions between the parties. The explanation that had been articulated on behalf of the HCPC was well reasoned and justified. The Panel agreed that a period of suspension would properly protect the public and that 9 months was a length of time that could be reached by a Panel at a substantive hearing.

35.       The Panel did not consider a more onerous sanction was necessary or proportionate in this case. The Panel further determined that to dispose of the case by way of consent as proposed would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. It concluded that the wider public interest is sufficiently protected by the imposition of a Suspension Order of 9 months which was sufficient to uphold proper professional standards.

36.        Accordingly, the Panel agreed with the proposed Consent Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Ms Bliss with a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1.     An application was made on behalf of the HCPC for an interim Suspension Order for 18 months as the sanction order will not come into effect until the expiry of 28 days from service of the determination or the end of an appeal. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders which it paid regard to. The Panel accepted the legal advice given by the Legal Assessor.

Decision

2.     The Panel had regard to the nature of the allegation and the fact that a Suspension Order had been imposed. The Panel determined that the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice, in light of the finding that the Registrant’s practice is impaired, until the imposition of the Suspension Order.  The Panel noted that 18 months should not be regarded as a default position. However, having listened to the submissions it decided that 18 months was proportionate.

3.     The Panel makes an Interim Suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. 

4.     This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mrs Evelyn V Bliss