Waheed Ahmed Ghauri

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing dated 15 September 2023 gave the 28 days’ notice required by rule 13 of the HCPC (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (‘the Rules’) and was served on the Registrant at his registered email address. The notice gave details of the date, time and mode of hearing (virtual) and explained the purpose of the hearing and the powers of the reviewing Panel. A link to attend this virtual hearing was also sent to the Registrant’s registered email address in advance of the hearing.

2. In those circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that there had been good service of the notice of hearing.

Adjournment and Proceeding in Absence

3. The Panel referred to the Registrant’s (third) email of 26 October 2023 and to the contents of the attendance note of a conversation between him and Ms Saba Raza on behalf of the HCPC that took place earlier on the same day. In substance, the Registrant’s position was that he was fit to practise but could not attend the hearing on 2 November 2023, because he could not take time off from his new full-time job as a senior care assistant at a care home, his manager being off sick.

4. Ms Sampson opposed the application and made submissions as to why the hearing should not be adjourned and as to why the Panel should conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it has accepted.

5. In considering the Registrant’s application, the Panel took into account the relevant parts of the HCPTS Practice Note, Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings, June 2022. Thus, panels have a statutory obligation to conduct fitness to practise proceedings expeditiously and it is in the interest of all parties, and the wider public interest, that allegations are heard and resolved as quickly as possible. A panel should take into account all relevant matters, including those identified in CPS v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin) so far as they are material to the case. The crucial factor is that a registrant is entitled to a fair hearing, but the convenience of the parties or their representatives is not sufficient reason for an adjournment.

6. The Panel considered why the adjournment was required. On 15 September 2023, following receipt of the notice of hearing from the HCPTS, the Registrant made clear by an email, in response, that he would be attending the hearing, which he mistakenly referred to as taking place on 2 December 2023. By letter from the Presenting Officer to the Registrant, emailed to him on 12 October 2023, it was pointed out that the hearing date was 2 November 2023. The letter went on to refer to the matters identified by the original panel in its written determination of 2 February 2023 as being evidence that a reviewing panel might find helpful.

7. During his call with Ms Raza on 26 October 2023, the Registrant stated that he could not attend the hearing on 2 November 2023, but went on to state that he did have two days leave left, but ‘I need to catch up with washing and household stuff, and shopping.’ No further dates were given by the Registrant as to when he would be able to attend the review of his case. He also told Ms Raza that he could not afford the time off.

8. The Panel appreciated that in a review case the persuasive burden is placed on a registrant to demonstrate the concerns that led to the original finding of impairment were no longer present. Thus, there is clearly a disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to attend and give oral evidence. However, the extent of that disadvantage is reduced in this case because it was open to the Registrant to provide independent written evidence of improvement in his health condition, but he has not done so. The type of evidence in question was set out in (paragraph 48 of) the determination of the original panel. As early as 17 March 2023, Ms Raza in an email to the Registrant stated, ‘… a review of your suspension will take place on or around October 2023 so it would be ideal for you to start collating evidence of your rehabilitation.’ No such evidence has been provided by the Registrant for this hearing.

9. There is a clear public interest in the prompt disposal of this review taking place before the suspension order expires on or about 2 December 2023. It is not clear that a further hearing could be convened before that time, particularly in view of the requirement that a fresh notice of hearing would have to be served.

10. In the circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied that the reasons put forward by the Registrant had prevented him from attending the hearing today and it concluded that he had chosen not to attend. There was a disadvantage to him if the review were not adjourned, but had he attended and given evidence, he would have done so without any independent evidence to corroborate the alleged improvement in his health condition.

11. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, the Panel decided not to adjourn the hearing.

12. In view of its decision that there had been good service of the notice of hearing, the Panel was satisfied for the purposes of rule 11 of the Rules that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the notice of hearing on the Registrant in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the Panel went on to consider whether or not to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

13. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant, June 2022. The Panel took into account its finding that the Registrant had chosen not to attend the hearing and concluded that no good reason had been given by him for his non-attendance today. He has voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. For the reasons given above, the disadvantage to the Registrant in not attending the hearing is reduced by the absence of any independent evidence as to the improvement of his health condition. There is also a clear public interest in the prompt disposal of this review today, before the current suspension order expires. For those reasons, the Panel decided that it was not unfair to the Registrant to proceed in his absence. Accordingly, the Panel decided to do so.

Conduct of the Hearing in Private

14. Ms Sampson applied for the entire hearing to be conducted in private under rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules, to protect the private life of the Registrant in relation to his health. As the entire hearing would be concerned with the Registrant’s health, the hearing should be conducted in private, and not parts of the hearing only. Ms Sampson referred to the relevant parts of the HCPTS Practice Note, Conducting Hearings in Private, March 2017 in support of her application.

15. The Legal Assessor advised that the entire hearing should be conducted in private for the reasons given by Ms Sampson. The Panel agreed and directed that the hearing be conducted in private.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to extend the current period of suspension by a further period of 12 months from the expiry of the current Suspension Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 2 December 2023.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 2 December 2024.

History of Hearings for Waheed Ahmed Ghauri