Mr Grzegorz P Skierka

Preliminary Matters
Application to adjourn

1. On the first day of the hearing, the Registrant had joined in by telephone and invited the Panel to adjourn to the following day as he had still not received the bundle and explained that he had been having internet difficulties. He stated that he did speak to the HCPC in October about a potential hearing in November, but since then has had difficulties with his mobile internet and even if he could view emails he cannot open attachments. He confirmed that if the bundle was received later today then he will have the time to read this and be ready to proceed for tomorrow.

2. Mr Micklewright, on behalf of the HCPC, confirmed that the HCPC were neutral on this application. He submitted that it had only come to light last week that the Registrant had issues receiving emails. Whilst he noted the Registrant had agreed on Friday to join by telephone, Mr Micklewright submitted that there had not been sufficient time for the bundle to be couriered to the Registrant, but hoped this would be with the Registrant later that day. He also expressed concern that the skeleton argument may not have been seen by the Registrant.

3. Mr Micklewright noted the Registrant had organised to attend the second and third days at the HCPTS building and confirmed that both of the HCPC witnesses had been warned for the first two days, and he had also made enquiries as to whether they could be available on the third day of the hearing. He submitted that there was little dispute on the facts, he had no questions of the witnesses and will tender them to the Registrant and Panel for any questions. With respect to the rest of the hearing and issues that will need considering in the final two days, he confirmed he will make an application to amend the allegations and then apply for a ‘no case to answer’ for the health allegation.

4. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on “Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had in mind its statutory obligation to conduct these proceedings expeditiously, rigorously scrutinise applications to adjourn and not adjourn unless it is shown that failing to do so will create a potential injustice. The Panel also noted that in considering the application it should have regard to the factors derived from the decision of CPS v Picton (2006) EWHC 1108.

5. The Panel consented to the Registrant’s application to adjourn to the following morning. Whilst the Panel bore in mind the need to be expeditious, it concluded that proceeding further today would not be fair or just. The Registrant was unrepresented, he had been doing his best to engage, he had liaised with HCPTS about his internet difficulties last week and he attended by telephone on the first day. However, he had no bundle and it would be unfair to expect him to make decisions in relation to whether to raise questions of the HCPC witnesses without having their statements before him. There were also preliminary applications that required the Registrant to consider material within the bundle before making informed decisions. Whilst the delay in making progress is unfortunate, the Panel considered the prejudice is mitigated as both the HCPC witnesses would still be available the following day, the parties would be better prepared, the Registrant would be better able to present his case and more efficient progress could be made.

6. The hearing was adjourned for the rest of the first day. Upon resuming on the second day, the Registrant again joined by telephone stating he had looked into the commuting costs to the HCPTS building and was unable to afford this. The Registrant requested the hearing proceed, he did not wish to apply for an adjournment and confirmed that he had received a hardcopy of the bundle on the afternoon of the first day.

Application to amend particulars

7. The Panel heard an application made by Mr Micklewright, representing the HCPC, to amend the wording of particulars.

8. The proposed amendments were as follows:

As a registered Paramedic (PA35070): your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or a health condition. In that:

1. In July 2021, you attempted to obtain Class A controlled drugs, namely psilocin and/or psilocybin (magic mushrooms), a scheduled Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by ordering them from the internet for delivery.

2. You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule A.

3. The matters described at particular 1 above constitute misconduct.

4. By reason of your misconduct and/or health your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A
[redacted]

9. Mr Micklewright relied upon the skeleton argument within the bundle. Within this, he had submitted that the HCPC wished to use the full correct legal terminology about the relevant psychoactive compounds related to controlled drugs. He submitted that this would give greater clarity to the Registrant on the case he has to answer and use of precise allegations also assists the public and the profession to better understand the case. It was submitted that within the disciplinary interview, the Registrant had referred to two relevant psychoactive compounds found in ‘magic mushrooms’ and the Registrant appeared to have suggested there is a legal distinction between both compounds. He submitted that the HCPC’s view was that both compounds remain as Class A controlled substances under the relevant legislation and the amendment was sought to include references to both compounds.

10. Mr Micklewright submitted that it is in the interests of justice for allegations to be drafted as accurately as possible, it was a small and technical amendment and it was not opposed.

11. On 14 September 2023, the amended wording had been sent to the Registrant by Blake Morgan LLP, acting on behalf of the HCPC. The Registrant replied on 17 September 2023 stating that the amendments were agreed and the Panel had sight of this email. At the hearing, the Registrant confirmed that he was still in agreement with the application to amend the allegations.

12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

13. The Panel noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’) were silent on amendments in such circumstances; the key question was one of fairness.

14. The Panel was of the view that the proposed amendments were in the interest of justice and would also assist in making the particulars more accurate. The amendments were minor and the changes were proportional to the issues to be considered. The Registrant had also confirmed agreement to the amendments. The Panel was satisfied that there would be no prejudice to the Registrant and no injustice would be caused to either party by the proposed amendments being allowed.

15. The Panel acceded to the application and allowed the amendments.

16. The amended allegations were as follows:

As a registered Paramedic (PA35070):

1. In July 2021, you attempted to obtain controlled drugs, namely psilocin and/or psilocybin (magic mushrooms), a scheduled Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by ordering them from the internet for delivery.

2. You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule A.

3. The matters described at particular 1 above constitute misconduct.

4. By reason of your misconduct and/or health your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A
[redacted]

Application to proceed in private

17. [redacted]
18. [redacted]
19. [redacted]
20. [redacted]
21. [redacted]

Application by HCPC to offer no evidence in relation to part of the allegation

22. Mr Micklewright made an application to offer no evidence on the part of the allegation relating to health. [redacted]

23. Mr Micklewright sought to offer no evidence on the [redacted] as opposed to discontinuing this part as there was insufficient time ahead of the substantive hearing for a preliminary hearing to be scheduled to organise a discontinuance application. He submitted there was nothing to suggest that the process for discontinuance, and that for offering no evidence, differ in any meaningful way.

24. The Registrant has considered the application and confirmed he supported this.

25. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice note “Discontinuance of proceedings”. The Panel noted they cannot simply agree to such an application without inquiry and needed to be satisfied that the rationale for seeking the discontinuance is sound. The Panel also had to be satisfied that the discontinuance did not result in ‘under-prosecution’.

26. The Panel noted the parties were in agreement for the HCPC to offer no evidence in respect of parts of the allegation referring to health. The argument in support of this application was clear and straightforward. There was no requirement of the Panel to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence [redacted]. The Panel considered it was in the public interest for allegations to only be pursued if there was a reasonable prospect of proving the allegation. The Panel was in agreement that this part of the allegation had no realistic prospect in being established either at the Fact stage or the Impairment stage. Therefore the Panel agreed to the HCPC’s application.

27. As a result, the remaining allegation for the Panel to consider was as follows:

As a registered Paramedic (PA35070):

1. In July 2021, you attempted to obtain controlled drugs, namely psilocin and/or psilocybin (magic mushrooms), a scheduled Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by ordering them from the internet for delivery.

2. The matters described at particular 1 above constitute misconduct.

3. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

Background

28. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic who at the time was employed by CRG Medical Services (‘CRG’) since April 2018. CRG were contracted to provide medical cover to police custody suites.

29. On 26 July 2021, WB, CRG's Head of Clinical Operations for the relevant area, was informed that the Registrant had not attended his shift at the Basildon Custody Suite that day and that there had been some police involvement. WB attended the Registrant’s home address to understand more about the situation. The Registrant advised her that he had been arrested following an attempt to buy ‘magic mushrooms’ (psilocin).

30. CRG began a disciplinary investigation, including conducting an interview with Registrant. During this interview, he discussed his reasons for attempting to buy the ‘magic mushrooms’, [redacted].

31. A disciplinary hearing was held by CRG on 10 August 2021, following which CRG wrote to the Registrant on 12 August 2021 with its decision to terminate the Registrant’s employment with immediate effect.

32. Following the disciplinary process, CRG made a fitness to practise referral to the HCPC on 20 August 2021.

33. On 14 January 2022, the police confirmed to the HCPC that they did not take any action against the Registrant.

34. Following preliminary investigations, the HCPC placed the matter before the Investigating Committee on 14 October 2022. The Committee referred the allegations to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

The Hearing

35. The amended allegation was put to the Registrant and he formally admitted this, namely that he had ordered controlled drugs over the internet, i.e. ‘magic mushrooms’.

36. The Panel noted that admissions are not proof and the HCPC still need to prove their factual particulars.

37. The HCPC had witness statements from the following two witnesses:
a) Witness 1: CRG’s Head of Operations for the East of England (‘AD’);
b) Witness 2: CRG's Head of Clinical Operations (‘WB’).

38. These witnesses were ready and available to give oral evidence. However, Mr Micklewright confirmed he had no questions for them and the Registrant also confirmed he had no questions for the witnesses. As the Panel also had no questions for the witnesses, they were released without needing to hear from them.

39. The Registrant did not wish to give any evidence at the Facts stage.

40. Both Mr Micklewright and the Registrant confirmed that they were content with oral reasons for the Facts stage being provided, with the written determination to follow later, as the issues are narrow and this would not cause any unfairness.

Decision on Facts:

41. Before making any findings on the facts, the Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has read the bundle from the HCPC.

42. In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the HCPC and it is for the HCPC to prove the Allegation irrespective of any admissions made by the Registrant. The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities.

43. The Panel has carefully considered the evidence in the round, giving appropriate weight to the documentary evidence. The Panel also considered the written statements of AD and WB for the HCPC.

44. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has no previous fitness to practise history.

Particular 1 - Proved
1. In July 2021, you attempted to obtain controlled drugs, namely psilocin and/or psilocybin (magic mushrooms), a scheduled Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, by ordering them from the internet for delivery.

45. Mr Micklewright provided brief closing submissions for the Facts stage and invited the Panel to place significant weight on the Registrant’s admission as this was clearly made after being properly advised of its significance by the Legal Assessor. He reminded the Panel that the HCPC’s evidence had not been challenged and the evidence supported the amended allegation.

46. The Registrant confirmed he wished to make no submissions for the Facts stage.

47. The Panel considered the unsigned statement of the Customs Official dated 2 August 2021, who confirmed that the Customs Official discovered the ‘magic mushrooms’ being imported from Netherlands and the parcel was addressed to the Registrant. This was not the sole and decisive evidence in the case, had not been disputed, had been provided by a professional, and thus the Panel considered it was admissible. The Panel attached some weight to this, albeit this was low on account of the statement being unsigned.

48. Within his signed witness statement, AD gave evidence about the discussion at the disciplinary hearing where the Registrant explained why he had purchased the ‘magic mushrooms’ online. AD had relied upon the disciplinary hearing minutes dated 10 August 2021 and thus was not relying on memory. These minutes were very close in time to the relevant event and had been exhibited.

49. Within her signed witness statement, WB had stated she attended upon the Registrant on 26 July 2021 and he stated, “that he had been arrested, and he openly admitted to me that he had ordered magic mushrooms online.” She also relied upon contemporaneous documents closer to the time of the relevant event. She exhibited a report made the following day, on 27 July 2021, which the Panel considered was a very detailed account. Within this she stated, “Greg explained that he had ordered some ‘magic mushrooms’ on the internet to be delivered in the post”.

50. The Panel was able to attach significant weight to the witness evidence of AD and WB. Both had provided signed statements and made themselves available for the hearing. They had relied upon contemporaneous documents meaning their evidence was reliable. There had been no challenge to any of the evidence provided by either witness.

51. The Panel did take into account the oral admission made at the hearing by the Registrant and was able to attach significant weight to this as it was clear and unambiguous. The admission was also consistent with the one made by the Registrant within his disciplinary hearing on 10 August 2021, where he had admitted to ordering ‘magic mushrooms’ online, and the Panel had sight of these minutes.

52. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel was satisfied that Particular 1 was proved.

Decision on grounds:
Misconduct

53. The Registrant provided oral evidence. He provided details of his [redacted] and that for these reasons he placed the online order. He stated this had been done after a year’s research including reading books and articles as well as listening to podcasts on the topic. He also provided details about the clinical trials. He stated that he ordered the drugs over the internet, did not appreciate this would be a Class A drug, regrets having done this, realises it is wrong and would not repeat this mistake. In cross examination, he accepted he ordered 12g instead of the lesser 6g option. In reply to the Panel’s clarification questions, the Registrant accepted that after his research he knew that ordering the drugs was illegal.

54. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct and argued that there was a serious breach of the HCPC’s ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics’, namely standard 9.1. He submitted that the proven allegation would amount to being a criminal offence in the criminal courts. He also submitted that the Registrant was aware the ‘magic mushrooms’ were illegal, irrespective of whether he knew the classification grading. He further submitted this was premeditated given the amount of research done in advance of placing the order. [redacted]

55. The Registrant, having had overnight to reflect, had no submissions in relation to misconduct.

56. The Panel has concluded that the proven allegation was so serious as to amount to misconduct. The Panel’s view was that a member of the public would be able to easily conclude this was serious misconduct without even having to consider the standards. The Registrant had accepted he knew his actions were illegal and it is noted he had done extensive research before placing the order. The Panel did not consider the actions were any less serious irrespective of whether the drugs were for himself [redacted]. The Panel did consider the conduct to be serious and deplorable.

57. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s behaviour fell seriously below the standards expected of a Paramedic. It has found that the Registrant failed to uphold his professional standards in fundamental areas and that he has breached fundamental tenets of his profession.

58. The conduct involved breaches of the following standard of the HCPC’s ‘Standards of conduct, performance and ethics:
• 9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

Decision on Impairment:

59. The Registrant provided oral evidence that since being dismissed by his employer, he has been working for Essex Ambulance Services, which is a private company, covering public and private events. He confirmed he had not undertaken any learning or remediation activities. He also stated that he was aware of his mistake and would not repeat it. He appreciated that the public would view his conduct negatively, it would affect the trust in the NHS and his own professional career had been damaged. He discussed his love for this chosen career and how much he values his professional role.

60. [redacted] The Registrant assured the Panel he would not repeat the same mistake, he appreciates it was illegal and that the drugs had not been prescribed. Finally, he stated that he should be given the highest sanction possible to ensure the public’s trust in the profession could be maintained.

61. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Micklewright for the HCPC. He invited the Panel to approach the question of impairment sequentially, looking both at the personal and public components of impairment in line with the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.

62. Mr Micklewright submitted the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired on both the personal and public component. He acknowledged the Registrant’s remorse, it being an isolated incident, the passing of two years without any further incident and that the Registrant had been of previous good character.

63. However, in terms of the personal component, Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s insight was not yet complete and there was a risk of repetition. He submitted that there had been no specific training or external evidence provided of any learning undertaken. Mr Micklewright submitted that the risk of repetition remained [redacted] and the incentive remains of trying to obtain drugs again.

64. Mr Micklewright submitted impairment was required on the public component, even if no personal impairment is found, due to the nature of the criminal offence. He submitted the conduct had been premeditated and committed in the full knowledge that it was illegal to order the drugs. He stated professional standards need to be maintained and the public would be concerned to learn of this matter given that Paramedics have access to controlled drugs.

65. The Registrant, having had overnight to reflect, had no submissions in relation to impairment.

66. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

67. The Panel has approached its decision on impairment by looking at the situation as it is today. It has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.

68. The Panel’s primary objective is the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

69. In reaching a decision on impairment, the Panel has considered all of the evidence and the submissions, and has exercised its’ own judgment on impairment.

70. Whilst there is no statutory definition of impairment, the Panel was assisted by the guidance provided by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman Report, as adopted by the High Court in CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011]. In particular, the Panel considered whether its findings of fact showed that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in that he:
a. Has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b. Has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or
Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession;

71. In approaching the question of impairment, the Panel has considered the personal and public components.

72. The Panel noted there was no character evidence or submission of references on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel did accept the Registrant was of previous good character with no previous regulatory findings against him. It also acknowledged that he had worked for the last two years without any further issues being raised.

73. On the personal component the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. The Panel considered the key questions: are the acts or omission which led to the allegations remediable; has the Registrant taken remedial action and are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated.

74. The Panel considered the misconduct was remediable. It is accepted the Registrant showed regret and remorse. It acknowledged that the Registrant stated he would not repeat this again and there had been no further incident in the last two years since the event. However, there was no evidence of training or learning undertaken.

75. The Registrant was still in the same situation with the same pressures. [redacted] The Panel could not exclude the possibility that the Registrant may potentially order drugs for himself, despite knowing it is illegal, given that he did originally say the drugs were for him. Accordingly, it was found that the risk of repetition was real and that risk was high.

76. In the disciplinary hearing on 10 August 2021, the Registrant mentioned that his research indicated that other psychoactive drugs were used to treat various [redacted]. The Panel was concerned that those drugs could be more readily available and did not require importing. This also supported a risk of repetition remaining.

77. The Panel did not find the insight was complete as his insight was limited to the impact of the drugs saying it is unprofessional and potentially fatal. However, the Panel was disappointed that there was no insight into why he ordered them in the first place, which is the actual allegation itself.

78. In terms of the public component the Panel has taken into account its overarching responsibility to protect service users, promote and maintain professional standards, and to uphold and protect the wider public interest, which includes promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered members of the public, with full knowledge of the details, would be concerned if a registered Paramedic had ordered drugs despite knowing this is illegal. The Panel agreed with Mr Micklewright that the fact that the Registrant is a Paramedic, dealing with controlled drugs on a regular basis means he would be expected to be more alert, cautious and not engaged in such conduct.

79. The Panel further finds that the Registrant’s behaviour has damaged the profession with both his colleagues and members of the public likely to find the conduct deplorable. The Registrant’s behaviour fell seriously short of the behaviour which the public would expect and affects the public’s confidence in the profession. The Panel is satisfied that given the nature of the allegations and the fact found proved, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment.

80. Having regard to all of the above, the Panel has found that, by reason of his misconduct, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the private and public component of impairment.

Decision on Sanction:

81. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Micklewright and in reaching a decision on the sanction it has taken these submissions into account. The HCPC did not seek a specific sanction. In terms of mitigating factors, Mr Micklewright accepted that there was some insight, and there had been remorse as well as an apology. He also accepted the Registrant was of previous good character. However, he reminded the Panel that it had found there is a high risk of repetition and the insight was not complete as the Registrant had not addressed the reason for purchasing the drugs. He also reminded the Panel of its findings on the lack of remediation steps undertaken.

82. In respect of the sanctions, Mr Micklewright submitted that taking no action was unlikely to be appropriate where the Panel had found the risks remained. With respect to a Caution Order, he referred the Panel to its earlier decision on impairment. In relation to conditions of practice, Mr Micklewright submitted that this was not a clinical case and any formulated conditions would need to be workable and properly targeted. He then reminded the Panel that the further options were a suspension and finally a strike off, with the latter being an order of last resort.

83. The Registrant was able to speak to the Legal Assessor in the presence of Mr Micklewright and was afforded time to prepare any submissions. Upon resuming the hearing, and confirming that he was ready to proceed, the Registrant maintained that the sanction should be as high as possible (in line with what he had stated in the oral evidence on the previous day). [redacted]

84. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and has reached its decision on sanction by following the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

85. The Panel has had regard to all the evidence presented. It reminded itself that a sanction is not intended to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality and that a sanction must be reasonable and the least restrictive possible.

86. The primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which the Registrant may pose to the wider public interest; namely the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

87. The Panel began its deliberations on sanction by considering the mitigating factors. The Panel had evidence of remorse and apology. The Panel also acknowledged the Registrant’s previous good character. The Panel noted this was a single isolated incident.

88. The Panel then considered the aggravating factors and found there was a lack of remediation and the insight was limited. The misconduct was serious, there had been premeditation/planning and there remained a high risk of repetition.

89. The Panel next considered the sanctions in ascending order of gravity.

90. It has found that it is not appropriate to make no order because the Panel had found a high risk of repetition, a lack of full insight and a lack of remediation.

91. A Caution Order is not appropriate because the misconduct was of a serious nature, the Panel had found a high risk of repetition, the insight was partial and the Panel was not convinced that there had been remediation.

92. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The misconduct was unrelated to the Registrant’s clinical practice. The Panel was not able to formulate any appropriate conditions in this specific case. The Panel did not consider there were any conditions that would be workable and verifiable. Additionally it noted the Registrant had been unable to work since early 2022 due to his health condition. In the circumstances it has determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate.

93. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel noted there had been a serious breach of the standards, but the Registrant had shown some insight (albeit it was developing) and he had shown continual engagement within this hearing. The Panel was thus able to conclude that the Registrant is likely to be able to remedy the failings. The Panel was satisfied that given the circumstances of this case a Suspension Order was necessary and appropriate.

94. Finally, the Panel considered a Striking Off Order, which was an option that was open to the Panel. However, this is a sanction of last resort. The Panel did consider that a lesser sanction would suffice, there was some insight, there was no evidence of repetition and nothing to indicate that the Registrant was not willing to remedy his failings as he has engaged throughout the hearing.

95. The Panel was satisfied that due to the nature and gravity of the concerns that any lesser sanction than a Suspension Order would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

96. The Panel was satisfied that a Suspension Order was the most appropriate sanction, having considered lesser sanctions before arriving at this order.

97. In all the circumstances, the Panel has determined that a 12-month Suspension Order would be a proportionate, appropriate sanction in reflecting the serious nature of the misconduct but allowing the Registrant an opportunity to return to practice, and/or gather the relevant evidence, in due course.

98. This sanction will be reviewed before it expires. A reviewing panel may be assisted by the following:
• A reflective statement focusing on obtaining psychoactive illegal drugs and to describe the impact on the profession and what he has learned;
• Evidence of ongoing Continuous Professional Development;
• Continual engagement with the HCPC and attendance at the next hearing;
• Anything else the Registrant considers would assist a future Panel.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Grzegorz Przemyslaw Skierka for a period of 12 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order
Application

1. Mr Micklewright submitted that an interim order was necessary to protect members of the public and was otherwise in the public interest because the Panel had found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired and imposed a 12 month Suspension Order.

2. Mr Micklewright also submitted that the basis had been established and the ground of public protection had already been found by the Panel in its substantive determination. He reminded the Panel of the finding of high risk of repetition of a criminal activity, hence sought an order on public protection grounds. He also submitted that members of the public would be shocked if no interim order is made where a substantive order is made. He invited the Panel to make an Interim Suspension Order in the same terms. He submitted the duration should only be as long as is necessary and invited the Panel to make the Interim Order for 18 months, which would cover any appeal period.

3. The Registrant agreed that the application is appropriate.

Decision

4. The Panel had careful regard to Paragraphs 133-135 of the Sanction Policy and to Paragraph 3.4 of the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, which offer guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed.

5. The Panel recognised that its powers to impose an Interim Order are discretionary and that imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Suspension Order has been imposed. The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant.

6. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied on the basis and requirement of an Interim Order given the facts found proved. In the judgment of the Panel, the risk of repetition identified in the substantive decision and the associated risk of harm that could result from repetition means that an Interim Order is necessary to protect members of the public. It is also required in the wider public interest as public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be seriously undermined if the Registrant was allowed to continue in unrestricted practice, after the substantive determination, during the appeal period.

7. The Panel first considered whether an Interim Conditions of Practice Order should be imposed. For the same reasons as the sanctions stage, the Panel did not consider these were appropriate or workable. The Panel considered an Interim Suspension Order would be appropriate and agreed this should be for the 18-month period.

8. If no appeal is made, then the Interim Suspension Order will be replaced by the 12 month Suspension Order, 28 days after the Registrant is sent the decision of this hearing in writing.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order 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.

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 Mr Grzegorz P Skierka