Mr Paul E McGuigan

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Panel has seen an unredacted email dated 19 October 2023 sent to the Registrant at his registered email address. The email sets out the date and time of this hearing and that it is to be conducted by video conference. The Panel has also seen an email of the same date from Microsoft Outlook which confirms that the email was delivered to the Registrant. Although this confirmation does not set out the full email address to which it was delivered, it is clear from the time sent and subject heading on both emails, that the confirmation relates to the notice of hearing email sent to the Registrant on that date.

2. The Panel has also seen an email exchange between the Hearings Officer and the Registrant which took place on 6 November 2023. The Hearings Officer had contacted the Registrant to see if he had changed his mind about attending the hearing today as the Registrant had previously completed a form indicating that he would not be attending.

3. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice. On the basis of the documents it has seen, the Panel is satisfied that there has been good service in this case. Conducting the hearing in private

4. In the written documentation provided for this hearing by the Registrant, he submitted that the entire proceedings should be conducted entirely in private on grounds: (i) there would be references to his health and to his private life, (ii) to protect the private life of his family, in particular his children from further references to his criminal conviction, and (iii) REDACTED.

5. Ms Mosely opposed the Registrant’s application to hold the entire hearing in private. She submitted that his conviction was already in the public domain and so there was no reason why this should not be referred to during the hearing. However, Ms Mosley acknowledged that those parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s health, and to the impact of his conviction on his family should be heard in private.

6. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice that although final hearings should be conducted in public, there were circumstances in which either part of a hearing, or the entire hearing, could be heard in private. Those circumstances include (i) where matters relating to a Registrant’s private life, including health concerns would be referred to, (ii) where matters which relate to a Registrant’s family would be referred 4 to, and (iii) where there were ongoing criminal proceedings which might be prejudiced.

7. The Panel has considered whether the matters relating to the Registrant’s health and his private life which inevitably also involve his immediate family members, are so inextricably bound up with the criminal conviction that it is not possible to conduct a coherent hearing unless it is held entirely in private. The Panel is satisfied that it will be possible to extricate any references to the Registrant’s health and his private life, REDACTED. However, it considers that to protect the private life of the Registrant’s family any references to the evidence relating to the conviction should be heard in private.

8. The Panel has therefore decided that it is appropriate to direct that those parts of the hearing which relate to the Registrant’s health be conducted in private so as to protect his private life. It also directs that those matters that relate to the underlying facts of the conviction are also heard in private to protect the private lives of the Registrant’s family. The rest of the hearing will be conducted in public.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

9. Ms Mosley applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that there was a public interest in proceedings progressing without undue delay. She also submitted that the Registrant had indicated that he did not intend to attend this hearing and so had voluntarily waived his right to attend. Ms Mosley submitted that by voluntarily waiving his right to attend, the Registrant was unlikely to attend at a later date, and that it was unclear when a re-scheduled hearing could be accommodated. Ms Mosely accepted that the Registrant would be disadvantaged by not attending the hearing but submitted that he had provided submissions in emails to the HCPC dated 1 May 2023 and 15 November 2023.

10. The Panel has considered whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel has received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it has had in mind the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel has balanced fairness to the Registrant with the interests of the HCPC and the wider public interest and has been mindful of the need to protect the public.

11. The Panel is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to notify the Registrant of today’s hearing. The email of 19 October 2023 states the date and time of this hearing and that it is to be conducted virtually and clearly sets out that it is a substantive hearing. The email also makes it clear that the hearing may proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

12. The Panel notes that the Registrant has indicated on two occasions, most recently on 6 November 2023 in an email to the Hearings Officer, that he will not be attending the hearing. The Registrant has provided reasons for his non-attendance, namely that he has to put his health first. He mentioned a physical health condition. The Registrant has not applied for the hearing to be adjourned and has indicated that he expects the hearing to proceed in his absence.

13. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant has made a considered decision to not attend and that he has therefore deliberately and voluntarily waived his right to attend. The Panel is satisfied that if the matter were to be adjourned the Registrant would not attend at a later date.

14. The Panel notes that the HCPC’s bundle was not served on the Registrant in accordance with the relevant rules. It was not served until after 6 November 2023 when the Registrant indicated in an email to the Hearings Officer that he had not received it. The Panel is satisfied that the bundle was then sent to the Registrant and that his email dated 15 November 2023 is a response to it. Although the Registrant has not been given the HCPC bundle in accordance with the relevant Rules and practice, the Panel is satisfied that he has had time to consider the documents and has been able to provide comprehensive submissions in response to it.

15. The Panel accepts that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant by not being present and participating in the hearing but notes that he has provided written submissions. The Panel has therefore concluded that any disadvantage to the Registrant is outweighed by the public interest in proceedings being heard when scheduled. The Panel will be careful to consider all matters which are in the Registrant’s favour throughout the proceedings.

16. In these circumstances, the Panel has decided it is right and proper in the interests of justice, to proceed with this hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

17. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist. At the relevant time, he was working as a Countywide Occupational Therapist Sensory Support by Durham County Council (“the Council”).

18. On 12 July 2021 at Durham Crown Court, he was convicted of an offence of attempted sexual communication with a child, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The particulars of the offence were: “Between 27 May 2020 and 19 June 2020, being a person aged 18 or over, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification, attempted to communicate intentionally with a person he believed to…a person under 16 who he did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual”.

19. On 9 August 2021, the Registrant was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. He was ordered to undertake 40 days of rehabilitation activity requirements as directed by an authorised provider of Probation Rehabilitation Activity Requirements. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order was imposed for 10 years, and the Registrant was required to be on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years. He was ordered to pay a Victim Surcharge of £128.

20. On 30 July 2021 HCPC received a referral from the Council regarding the Registrant’s conviction.

21. On 24 March 2023, a panel of the Investigating Committee found that there was a case to answer and referred the Allegation set out above to this Committee.

Decision on Facts

22. The Panel has received from the HCPC a bundle of documents totalling 18 pages (of which 12 pages are exhibits). The exhibits were the Police Report, the Indictment, and the Certificate of Conviction from Durham Crown Court. No witnesses were called to give evidence.

23. The Panel has received two bundles of documents provided by the Registrant. The first consisted of 11 pages and included an email from the Registrant to the HCPC dated 15 November 2023 setting out his position. It also included an email from the Registrant to the HCPC dated 1 May 2023 in which the Registrant explained how some of the offences with which he had been charged (REDACTED), how and why he had pleaded guilty to the offence which now forms Particular 1 of the Allegation, and the impact on his health and on his family of the criminal proceedings and these proceedings.

Particular 1 - found proved

24. The Panel has received in evidence a Certificate of Conviction dated 1 March 2022 which shows that on 12 July 2021, at Durham Crown Court, the Registrant was convicted of an offence of attempted sexual communication with a child, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Certificate of Conviction sets out the sentence passed, namely: 10 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months; and 40 days of rehabilitation activity requirements as directed by an authorised provider of Probation Rehabilitation Activity Requirements. The following Orders were imposed: a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years, and a requirement to be on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years. The Registrant was also ordered to pay a Victim Surcharge of £128.

25. In an email dated 15 November 2023 sent by the Registrant to the HCPC, he explains that although he pleaded guilty to the offence, he did so only as part of a plea bargain and that he was not in fact guilty of attempting to have any sexual communication with a child.

26. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice. It has had in mind that Rule 10 (1) (d) the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 states: “At any hearing…..(d) where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction …shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based”.

27. The Panel has also been referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and notes the following: “..in considering conviction allegations, Panels must be careful not to “go behind” a conviction and seek to re-try the criminal case”.

28. While the Panel notes the Registrant’s position regarding his plea of guilty to the criminal offence, it has concluded that it must not “go behind” that conviction.

29. The Panel is satisfied that it can rely on the Certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof (i) that the Registrant was convicted of the offence set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation, and (ii) of the underlying facts of that conviction.

30. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that Particular 1 of the Allegation is proved.

Decision on Grounds

31. The Panel is satisfied based on the Certificate of Conviction dated 1 March 2022 from Durham Crown Court that the statutory ground of conviction is proved. In reaching this decision the Panel has received and accepted legal advice.

Decision on Impairment

32. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations”. The Panel has taken account of the submissions of Ms Mosley and the written submissions of the Registrant. It has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel has borne in mind that the purpose of this hearing is not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise.

Submissions

33. Ms Mosley submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both personal and public component grounds.

34. REDACTED

35. Ms Mosely submitted that the conviction was for a very serious criminal offence and reminded the Panel of the case of CRHP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) where it was made clear that ‘where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence or offences, he should not be permitted to resume his practice unrestricted’ and ‘the rationale for the principle is that good standing in a profession must be earned if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained.’

36. Ms Mosely submitted that due to the Registrant’s lack of insight, and because there was no independent evidence that the Registrant had remedied his conviction, there is a risk of repetition in this case. She submitted that a finding of impairment on the personal component was required in order to protect members of the public.

37. In relation to the public component, Ms Mosley submitted a finding of impairment was required in order to maintain public confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession and in the HCPC as its regulatory body.She submitted that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be shocked and troubled if there were no finding of impairment in this case where the Registrant had been convicted of a serious sexual offence involving a child.

38. The Registrant’s written submissions did not directly address the issue of impairment. He explained his version of the events that led up to his being arrested and later pleading guilty to the criminal offence outlined in the conviction. He expressed remorse for his behaviour in his email dated 1 May 2023 and said he was doing everything to put it right.

Decision

Personal component

39. The Panel has considered the personal component. It is satisfied that the conviction in this case is capable of being remedied, although it recognises that it is more difficult for a registrant to demonstrate that they have taken steps to remedy conduct of a sexual nature. In this case, there is some evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has started to take steps toward remedying his conviction, but it is clear that he is at a very early stage in this process.

40. There is no independent evidence to confirm that he has completed the 40 hours of Rehabilitation Activities as requested by a Probation Officer.

41. The Panel is concerned that it does not appear that the Registrant has, as yet, actively taken steps to understand his offending behaviour. The Panel is concerned that he lacks insight into the effect his behaviour would have on a young child, or the effect of his behaviour on his profession and the wider public. The Panel notes that there is no evidence of any assessment of the Registrant’s sexual behaviour towards children and how treatable this might be. The Panel accepts that the Registrant has limited insight into his communications when he described it as being “vile, disgusting and morally wrong”. However, the Panel must also note that this limited insight cannot be viewed in isolation but must be viewed in the context of the Registrant not accepting that he was guilty of the offence to which he pleaded guilty. The Panel takes the view that in submissions, the Registrant has sought to minimise what he has done, and its potential consequences. Rather than looking at those consequences, he has distanced himself from them.

42. The Panel has considered the likelihood that the Registrant will repeat the conduct that led to his conviction and has concluded that the risk of repetition is high in this case. It has reached this conclusion based on the Registrant’s limited insight and the lack of steps he has taken to remedy his conviction.

43. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

Public component

44. In relation to the public component, the Panel has considered very carefully whether given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the conviction in this case, public confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession and its regulatory body would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel has also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.

45. The Panel has considered the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

Standard 9 states: Standard 9: Be honest and trustworthy Personal and professional behaviour

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

46. The Panel is satisfied that in being convicted of an attempted sexual communication with a child the Registrant has breached Standard 9.1 in that he did not make sure that his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him or in his profession.

47. The Panel has concluded that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned if there was no finding of impairment where those facts showed that the Registrant’s conviction involved attempting to communicate with a child who he knew to be under 16 years, for his own sexual gratification. The Panel is satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel is also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Occupational Therapy profession if it did not find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

48. The Panel has no doubt that the Registrant’s conviction has brought the Occupational Therapy profession into disrepute and that it also breaches the fundamental tenet of that profession, namely that a registrant’s conduct must be trustworthy at all times.

49. In these circumstances, the Panel finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the public component.

50. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public component.

Decision on Sanction

51. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction the Panel was referred to, and has taken account of, the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel is aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have that effect, but it is to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession and to uphold its
standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel has also had in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the conviction involved.

Submissions

52. As is the HCPC’s usual approach at the sanction stage, Ms Mosley did not advance any particular sanction. Ms Mosley referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and in particular to paragraph 76 (sexual misconduct), paragraphs 77-78 (sexual abuse of children), and paragraph 85 (sex offender). She submitted that the aggravating factors were the Registrant’s lack of insight, remorse and apology, and the fact that he had not remedied his conviction.

Decision

53. The Panel has considered mitigating and aggravating factors of the conviction. The Panel first looked at the mitigating factors and has concluded that the only mitigating factor is that there are no previous regulatory findings against the Registrant, who has been an Occupational Therapist for a number of years, reaching a senior position. The Panel has considered whether it should take the Registrant’s plea of guilty to the criminal offence at Durham Crown Court into account as a mitigating factor. It has decided that it cannot do so because it is clear that the Registrant does not accept his guilt despite his guilty plea.

54. The Panel has considered whether the Registrant’s health condition at the relevant time (May and June 2020) might provide any mitigation in this case. The Panel notes that there is evidence which suggests that he was suffering at that time from an undiagnosed health condition. The Panel does consider that this may well have contributed to his acting as he did. The Panel has therefore concluded, on the information before it, that it can take the Registrant’s health condition into account as personal mitigation.

55. The Panel considers the following to be aggravating factors:
- the Registrant has no insight into his conviction and its potential impact on the ‘child’, or its impact on service users, his profession, and the wider public interest;
- the Registrant has failed to express any proper remorse or to apologise for his conviction;
- the Registrant has not taken any steps (or provided any corroborative evidence that he has taken any steps) towards remedying his conviction (as opposed to taking steps to treat his health condition);
- the potential service user harm would have been very serious and this potential harm undermines public confidence in the profession.

56. The Panel has considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It has decided that mediation or taking no action is inappropriate in this case given the serious nature of the conviction.

57. The Panel has also decided that imposing a Caution Order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The Panel has had in mind the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy paragraph 101 which states: “101. A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in
which:
• the issue is isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

58. The Panel considers that while the conviction in this case was “isolated” in the sense that it involved attempted communication with one ‘child’ only, and “limited” in the sense that the attempted sexual communication took place over a short period of time, it could not be described as “relatively minor in nature”. The Panel is not able to conclude that there is a low risk of repetition because the Registrant has shown only limited insight into the causes of his offending behaviour, and no insight into its impact on service users, his profession and the wider public.

59. The Panel has also had in mind that a Caution Order permits a registrant to be in unrestricted practice and considers that this would be inappropriate in this case in light of guidance given in the Sanctions Policy in cases where a registrant is on the Sex Offender Register. Paragraph 85 states: “Although the inclusion on the sex offenders’ database is not a punishment, it does serve to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. A panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database”.

60. The Panel is satisfied that to ensure public confidence in the profession is not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

61. The Panel then considered a Conditions of Practice Order and in particular the matters set out in paragraph 106 and 108 of the Sanctions Policy which states: 106 “A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
• the registrant has insight;
• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
• there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;
• the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”. 108 “Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving:…..
• sexual misconduct (see paragraphs 76 – 77)
• sexual abuse of children (see paragraph 78 – 79)
• criminal convictions for serious offence (see paragraphs 80 – 84).

62. While the Panel has found that the conviction in this case is capable of being remedied, it considers that the Registrant has shown only limited insight into this. There remains therefore, a real risk of repetition of the behaviour that led to that conviction. The Panel has also concluded that it is not possible to devise appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions which would address the serious concerns regarding the Registrant’s inappropriate and sexually motivated behaviour in this case. The Panel also takes the view that given the nature and gravity of the conviction in this case (which involved a serious offence relating to attempted sexual communication with a child), public confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession and in the regulatory process would be undermined if it were to impose a Conditions of Practice Order.

63. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It has had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy: “121 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. These types of cases 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;
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

64. The Panel has considered very carefully whether the Registrant’s very limited insight into his conviction and the level of the risk of repetition rules this sanction out. The Panel has already expressed its view that the concerns in this case are capable of being remedied. The Panel has considered whether there is evidence that this Registrant is capable of remedying the offending behaviour which led to his conviction. It has considered with care the Registrant’s written submissions. The Panel has made all proper allowance for the fact that, at the time of the offence, the Registrant was suffering from an undiagnosed health condition. However, it is concerned that the Registrant has not provided any documentary proof of e.g., successful completion of the 40 hours of rehabilitation activity requirement which he was required to undertake as part of his sentence, or of his abstinence from alcohol for three years. There is no evidence that the Registrant has genuinely accepted or understood the impact of his conduct on children in general, his profession, or the wider public interest. The Panel considers that the Registrant has sought to minimise, deflect, and distance himself from his conviction and the behaviour that led up to it. The Panel has reached the conclusion that whilst the misconductmay be capable of being remedied, the Registrant is not capable at this stage of remedying it. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that a Suspension Order is not the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

65. The Panel has also concluded that a Suspension Order even for a period of 12 months would not be appropriate or proportionate to maintain public confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession or its regulatory body. Such an Order would not send out an appropriate message to the profession about this type of serious criminal conviction. The Panel considers that a reasonable and informed member of the public would expect a more severe sanction in circumstances where a senior and experienced practitioner attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child.

66. The Panel has therefore concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is an order striking the Registrant off the Register. The Panel has considered the Sanctions Policy where, in paragraphs 130, it is stated that such a sanction is one of “last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving….” e.g., for sexual misconduct (paragraphs 76-77); sexual abuse of children (paragraphs 78-79), and criminal convictions for serious offences (paragraphs 80-84).

67. The Panel has also had in mind paragraph 131 which states: “A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• lacks insight
• continues to repeat the misconduct
• is unwilling to resolve matters.

68.The Panel has concluded that the Registrant lacks anything more than limited insight into his conviction. The Panel is concerned that the Registrant has an attitudinal problem which whilst it may not mean that he is “unwilling” to resolve matters, suggests that he is incapable of doing so. The Panel considers that the Registrant may continue to be incapable of doing so until he addresses the causes of his offending behaviour. The Panel notes that an Order striking the Registrant from the Register will have a detrimental effect on the Registrant’s professional reputation, and on him financially. However, the Panel also notes that the Registrant has realistically accepted that the likely outcome of these proceedings will be a Strike Off Order and he has indicated that he is keen for the proceedings to be concluded so that he can get on with the rest of his life.

69.The Panel is satisfied, based on the Registrant’s limited lack of insight and the nature and gravity of the allegation, involving as it does an attempted sexual communication with a child, that to ensure public confidence in the Occupational Therapy profession and in the HCPC as its regulatory body is maintained, and in order to uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession, it is appropriate and proportionate to order that the Registrant’s name be struck off the register.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Paul E McGuigan from the Register on the date that this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order
1. Ms Mosley applied for an Interim Suspension Order. Ms Mosley submitted that given the Panel’s findings in relation to impairment, an Interim Suspension Order was necessary to protect the public and it was otherwise in the public interest.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. The Panel has decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the same reasons as set out in its determination above. The Registrant has received proper notice of the application in the email sent to him by the HCPC on 19 October 2023. The Panel considers that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to attend and that it is in the public interest that such an application is considered.

Decision

3. The Panel has decided to make 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 for the reasons set out in the determination above.

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 Mr Paul E McGuigan