Michelle Bignall

Preliminary Matters

Privacy and Hearsay Application

1. The Panel was advised that information regarding the witness’s health may arise in the course of the hearsay application. In addition, Mr Barnfield for the HCPC applied to hold the hearing in private if and when there are issues during the hearing of the evidence that relate to health or family circumstances of a witness.

2. Having taken advice from the Legal Assessor as to the interests of justice and the importance of the open justice principle, the Panel concluded that it was fair and appropriate in the circumstances to hear the hearsay application in private in order to protect the witness’s privacy, and to conduct the hearing in private if and when any matters arise that relate to a witness’s health and/or private life.

Application to admit LAS disciplinary documentation

3. Mr Barnfield applied to admit further documentation relating to the local LAS investigation. He submitted that some of Person G’s evidence has been redacted at present to exclude details of the local investigation. He submitted that this evidence was both relevant and fair and Person G was due to give evidence and can be asked about these documents. These documents properly did not include the findings of the investigation, but they deal with how the employer dealt with concerns, who they spoke to and when. They include the Registrant’s response and her stated view of the validity of the investigation, which he submitted was relevant. He submitted that the information assists as it goes to how the evidence came about, and also relate to the attitude of the Registrant to the validity of the LAS investigation. He told the Panel some of the material was correspondence between Person G and the Registrant about the LAS investigation seeking her response in writing, including her views of the validity of the investigation. He said that this evidence was both fair and relevant and should be admitted as it related to the credibility of the Registrant.

4. Mr Pataky submitted that this material derived from the LAS investigation and report. He said the scope of the HCPC case is set out in the allegation before the Panel and the current redactions relate to the Registrant’s participation in the LAS investigation and to Person G’s involvement. Mr Pataky submitted that the correspondence between the Registrant and Person G was not relevant, and the approach of the Registrant has no bearing on the allegations and that the material is potentially prejudicial to the Registrant. He submitted that the chronology of the LAS investigation is not relevant to the HCPC case before the Panel and submitted that the Panel ought to refuse this application.

5. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that the rule as to admission of evidence was whether it was fair and relevant. He referred to the over- arching objectives of the Regulator and reminded the Panel to be mindful of the interests of justice, fairness, and its inquisitorial role.

6. The Panel was mindful of fairness and the admissibility test. With its inquisitorial role in mind, as well as the overriding objectives of the HCPC, it decided that the evidence described by Mr Barnfield was evidence which it appeared was relevant and was fair to admit. It is evidence that can be tested by both parties in the course of the hearing. It appeared to be evidence, albeit circumstantial, that was related to the context and circumstances of the LAS investigation regarding the Registrant and her alleged conduct. The Panel considered that such evidence was relevant and would be of assistance to it in its assessment of the evidence as a whole.

7. The Panel decided that the evidence is relevant and will assist in the assessment of the credibility and reliability of the evidence. It concluded that it was fair to admit that evidence and it will, in due course, attach such weight, if any, as it finds is appropriate when assessing the evidence as a whole.

Background

8. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic. On 9 December 2021, the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) received a referral from the London Ambulance Service (‘LAS’) advising that the Registrant was under investigation following complaints that she had demonstrated a pattern of conduct and behaviour towards colleagues which allegedly constituted bullying and harassment, as set out in the particulars of the allegation. It is alleged that the Registrant’s conduct is a breach of HCPC standards and has the potential to negatively impact on the care of service users.

9. The HCPC investigation was delayed due to the ongoing LAS investigation. The LAS investigation and disciplinary process was concluded on 12 May 2022 and on 11 August 2022 the LAS provided the investigation documentation to the HCPC and the HCPC regulatory investigation commenced.

10. On 24 November 2022, the HCPC Investigating Committee decided that there was a case to answer, at which point the HCPC instructed solicitors to conduct the regulatory investigation. The allegations are denied by the Registrant.

Witness- (Person B)

11. Person B is an Emergency Medical Technician for LAS and worked for a short time with the Registrant. He adopted his witness statement and told the Panel about the alleged incidents with the Registrant in October 2020. He said that he first meets the Registrant on 7 or 8 October 2020.

12. Person B told the Panel about the discussion with the Registrant about the “Bumble” website, and she had said to him it was a gay dating web site. He said that he remembered thinking at the time that this was a weird thing for the Registrant to say to him, and he had explained that the site was not a gay dating site. He said that the Registrant had said to him that she had discussed the website with her daughter and a colleague. He stated that he had then proceeded to show the Bumble app on his telephone to her. He said that he felt if he had said that he was using Bumble to date men, this would have created problems with the Registrant, and he said he felt that she was “digging” into his private life. He said that she was almost laughing during this conversation and her tone was judgmental.

13. Person B said he was “quite sensitive” and stated that he was not sure if he was overreacting to the situation, but the conversation had made him feel embarrassed because he did not like people talking about him. He reported this incident, and he was advised the keep a note of any further incidents. He did so, he made contemporaneous notes and sent them in an email to his colleague on 21 February 2021.

14. Person B told the Panel about the further incident with the Registrant on 8 October 2020. Having arrived at work, he had walked past the Registrant and as he walked towards his ambulance, the Registrant had arrived and said to him, ‘Oh you decided to show up then.’

15. On the same day a friend, who was very upset, had telephoned him to tell him that another friend had died. Person B told the Registrant, and she
responded saying to him - ‘People with mental health shouldn’t be in this job’. At this point he said he went very quiet and felt that the Registrant’s comment was “extremely judgmental.” Person B said that he had felt “belittled, judged and humiliated” by the Registrant and he had not felt able to challenge her as he felt he would not be listened to and would be talked down to “as if he were nothing” so he had decided to just “get on with it”.

16. In a further incident on 20 October 2020, Person B told the Panel that after dealing with a patient the Registrant had said to Person B, ‘Let me check what you’ve written’. He explained that he did not mind other people checking his paperwork and had told her - ‘Its not finished yet’. The Registrant had replied saying, ‘I need to check you’ve got everything, you can datix me if you want’. He said when she had made this comment it “sounded serious” and it was not made in a joking way. Person B said that the Registrant had made this comment in front of the patient’s next of kin. The Registrant stated that she did not trust him, saying - ‘I don’t trust you’, in front of the patient’s next of kin. Person B said that he had found this completely undermining, unprofessional, and uncalled for. He said that at times he had felt bullied by the Registrant.

17. Person B told the Panel about a further incident on 21 October 2021. He said that at one point during the shift and in the front of the ambulance, the Registrant had made a comment about how a colleague was sleeping with half of the LAS and the Metropolitan police, even though “she looks like a man”. Person B said that this comment made him feel “awkward and uncomfortable”. He said that, whilst there is a lot of talking about people in the ambulance service, the Registrant seemed intent on focussing on other peoples’ lives and her comments felt “venomous.”

18. Person B said he eventually felt that he had had enough of the Registrant and last worked with her on 24 October 2020. Person B said he felt his mental health suffered as a result of the Registrant’s behaviour towards him. He said he felt he was not good enough to do the job and he did not want to come to work. He said the workplace was jokey, but it was not petty.

19. In cross examination, Person B said he worked only about six or eight shifts with the Registrant, and he did not see the Registrant as a “dinosaur” due to her length of service. Person B said that, whilst he had raised the “Bumble” website with the Registrant, she had discussed it with others and had said it was for gay men. He denied he had been late for the shift on 8 October 2020 and the comment by the Registrant about turning up had not been made in a “jokey” manner.

20. Person B accepted the Registrant was senior to him, but that did not mean she could belittle him as she had. He denied distorting his conversations with the Registrant and said he had nothing to gain from doing so. He accepted the Registrant was entitled to ask to check his paperwork, his issue was what she said to him in front of the patients’ family about that not trusting him. He denied knowing that other colleagues had also raised complaints about the Registrant around that time.

21. In response to Panel questions, Person B said that he had felt bullied by the Registrant. He had felt “small”, and he had blocked some of it out. He said that he had become very anxious about going into work as a result of the Registrant’s conduct towards him. He said he avoided the “rumour mill” in the workplace. He said he had raised his concerns as he felt the relationship with the Registrant could impact on patient safety.

Witness - (Person D)

22. Person D is an Emergency Medical Technician at LAS and has worked there since 2015. She adopted her witness statement and told the Panel about a number of incidents regarding the Registrant. She referred to the statements that she had given to the LAS investigation on 24 October 2020 and 9 December 2020. She could not recall the dates of several of the incidents.

23. Person D told the Panel about the incident on 21 October 2021 when the Registrant had excluded her when addressing other colleagues in the Mess room and, despite staring at her, had not spoken to her. Person D said she had been left feeling “embarrassed” and “belittled” by the Registrant’s behaviour on numerous occasions. Person D said other colleagues noticed this conduct and that had made her feel even more uncomfortable.

24. Person D said that she began to dread going to work and felt harassed and intimidated by the Registrant. Person D said the Registrant had behaved like this for years. Person D had raised two earlier complaints about the Registrant, but Person D felt that LAS had let her down despite the Dignity at Work policy. Person D felt that the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour had damaged her work relationships and had altered the dynamic at work. Person D said that she thought the Registrant’s conduct had been “horrifying” given that she was a Paramedic and was meant to be empathetic.

25. Person D told the Panel about the Registrant talking about a colleague being a “husband stealer” and using the word “cunt” about another colleague, (Person E), and deliberately kicking Person E’s bag. Person D said that her and Person E would both feel uncomfortable with the Registrant, who would often look at
both of them “up and down” and giggle, belittling them. Person D said that the Registrant seemed to decide not to like her. After about 7 ½ years of this conduct Person D said she felt exhausted by the Registrant’s conduct, and it was mentally exhausting. She said it had been “very awful” and had affected her mental health.

26. In cross examination, Person D said she had a long and difficult relationship with the Registrant and said she was “sad” about that. She said she had initially been friends with the Registrant but grew to dislike her because of how she treated Person D. Person D said she was Person E’s crew mate for some time but rarely saw Person E now that she had left the service. Person D was aware that Person E had also previously raised concerns about the Registrant’s behaviour. Person D was aware that LAS took no action in 2017 and 2019 despite complaints made about the Registrant. Person D was not aware that the Registrant had also raised concerns about Person D and other colleagues.

27. Person D denied that she had been hostile to the Registrant but said she and Person E had just stayed out of her way. She denied bullying the Registrant and said she had just wanted to work in an environment where she felt comfortable. She said she had never wanted the Registrant to lose her job and regretted that it had come this far which had made her feel “dreadful”. She had not discussed her complaint with Person E as each had a different experience, but she had told Person E that she was going to raise a complaint. She denied that she was part of a clique at work with Person E. She denied that she was exaggerating or being over-sensitive about the Registrant’s behaviour, or that she was jumping to conclusions or making things up.

28. In response to Panel questions, Person D said she did not know why her relationship with the Registrant had broken down. She felt local management had been good, but that senior management had not dealt with her earlier concerns about the Registrant.

Witness - (Person E)

29. Person E is a registered Paramedic and worked at LAS at the relevant time. She adopted her witness statement and told the Panel about her experience of working with the Registrant in the period 2018 to 2020. She referred to a number of notes of incidents that she had made at the time.

30. Person E told the Panel about an incident on 25 November 2020 when the Registrant had parked an ambulance next to Person E who was sitting in the cab of another vehicle. Person E said that the Registrant had stood staring directly at her, Person E described the Registrant as “locked in”. Person E

said that the Registrant was “incredibly intimidating” and “intense” in the way she stared at her. The Registrant had said nothing, and Person E said that this had happened several times. Person E said she was shocked by the Registrant’s behaviour and that there had been a pattern of such behaviour by the Registrant.

31. Person E said that the Registrant’s conduct had been intimidating, she thought it was because complaints had been raised by several staff against the Registrant. Person E said that she had raised concerns about the Registrant with management and had been told to keep a record of any incidents. Person E said that she considered the Registrant’s staring behaviour was designed to intimidate her, and she had felt “defeated” by the Registrant’s behaviour. Person E described incidents when the Registrant would stare at her with disgust for a sustained period of time, and that would make Person E cry. Person E said there was no let up and the Registrant had made it clear that she hated Person E.

32. Person E said that later on 25 November 2020 the Registrant had approached her when no one else was in the garage, and again stared at her in an intimidating manner. The Registrant stood in her personal space and Person E had been concerned about what the Registrant might do to her. The Registrant had stood very close to Person E and stared at her for about 20 seconds. Person E said that she had “frozen” and was really intimated as the Registrant is taller than her and she was pinned in by her and could not physically move.

33. Person E said that the Registrant made the whole workplace really uncomfortable. When she appeared in the station conversations would stop and people would leave. Person E said that the Registrant had the power to disperse twenty people in the station as she would be nasty, and people would leave the room and move away.

34. Person E said on two occasions the Registrant had approached her and “sniggered” at her in the ladies changing room. Person E said that she felt belittled and that the Registrant’s conduct clearly had been directed at her. She told the Panel that she knew that the Registrant had said to a colleague, Person D, that she should watch Person E as she “steals other peoples husbands”

35. Person E said she heard the Registrant call her a “slut.” That was said by the Registrant in front of patients and other colleagues. Person E said that the Registrant had also called her a “cunt” and that was aggressive and disrespectful.

36. Person E described one incident where the Registrant had refused to take the telephone from her when the caller had asked for the Registrant. The Registrant had refused to move and had made a colleague take the telephone. Person E said it was petty and “baffling” behaviour.

37. Person E said she had left her role because of the Registrant’s behaviour. Despite all the incidents she recorded, nothing was done by management, and it was “miserable”. Person E said that at every point of contact with the Registrant, it was awful. Person E said that in isolation these events may seem petty, but it was every day and the Registrant’s conduct wore her down and was the Registrant’s way of exerting power.

38. In cross examination, Person E said that when she raised a grievance there was already a difficult relationship with the Registrant. Person E had raised a dignity at work complaint against the Registrant in 2017 and 2019, but no formal action had been taken. The outcome of the 2019 investigation had been that there had been a breakdown in the relationship, and there had been a suggestion of a more informal approach.

39. Person E did not recall the Registrant raising concerns in 2017, 2019 and 2020 about Person E’s conduct towards the Registrant. Person E did not recall any formal discussions about that. Person E said she did not “blank” the Registrant but had been told by management to ignore the Registrant, not to retaliate and not to interact with her. Person E denied she had been hostile towards the Registrant, and said she was just trying to defend herself and did not bully the Registrant.

40. Person E said her grievance in 2020 was raised after several years of recording incidents as the Registrant’s behaviour was an ongoing issue. She felt that no one was taking her seriously. She had spoken to Person D about it and they had both felt the Registrant was getting worse. Person E said that the Registrant was clever and always made sure that there were no witnesses to her behaviour. Person E reiterated that she left her job because of the Registrant’s bullying behaviour. She said she avoided all contact where possible with the Registrant. She had done her best to record the incidents, but the priority was her patients. She said she had been bullied and harassed by the Registrant.

41. As regards the alleged comment by the Registrant about Person E being a “husband stealer,” Person E accepted that this was not heard by her directly but was reported to her by Person D. She said that in the hospital handover, when it was alleged, the Registrant pushed in ahead of her, that she had advocated for her patient and she was met with unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour by the Registrant who had simply laughed at her. She could not recall whether there was any comment made by the Registrant at that time.

42. Person E denied inventing incidents to support her complaint against the Registrant. She said that each time she had asked management for cameral footage of incidents, but it was never made available.

43. In response to Panel questions, Person E confirmed that she was interviewed in December 2019 and had started her new role on 2 January 2020.

Witness - PH

44. PH is a registered Paramedic who at the relevant time worked at LAS as a Paramedic along with the Registrant, Person E and Person D. He read his witness statement and told the Panel about a number of incidents involving the Registrant.

45. PH said that he initially had a good working relationship with the Registrant but her attitude towards him changed when he started working with Person
D. He told the Panel about the alleged incident when he saw the Registrant Staring at Person D whom he said was anxious around her as he knew they did not get on. He had suggested to Person D that they leave the mess room and have their tea in the ambulance to diffuse the situation. He said that he saw the Registrant come in and sit in the ambulance next to them. She was staring at them both for about 5 or 10 minutes. He had said to Person D that he thought that was “strange” and that it was an attempt to intimidate Person D and get a reaction. He said Person D was open and friendly and she was not a confrontational person.

46. PH also said that he had seen the Registrant make a point of saying hello to colleagues, but not to him or Person D. He said it was clear to him that the Registrant was doing this deliberately. She had later returned and said “bye” to her colleagues, but not to them. She had then stared and “sniggered” at him and Person D. He said that this had happened a few times and he had felt uncomfortable and thought the Registrant’s behaviour was childish. He said the manner in which the Registrant did this was deliberate and intimidating toward Person D.

47. PH said that he and Person D had reported the Registrant to the management regarding this incident. He and Person D were then interviewed, and he recalled Person D was very upset and was in tears. He was also interviewed by a senior colleague who was investigating the allegations against the Registrant.

48. In cross examination, PH said that the Registrant had described Person E and Person D to him as “cunts.” He said he did not get involved or enquire further. He had tried to remain friends with the Registrant, but then she had said to him “I’m not talking to you.” He said that the Registrant had sworn at him, and he denied that he was ever hostile towards her.

49. PH said he was not aware that the Registrant had raised concerns about him, Person D and Person E whom the Registrant had claimed were “blanking” her. He said he had tried to be civil and professional with the Registrant. He had never noticed Person D turning her back on the Registrant, and he denied bullying the Registrant or agreeing with Person D to make complaints. He said he was simply a witness to some incidents.

Witness – CJ

50. CJ is a Registered Paramedic who at the relevant worked in LAS. She worked with the Registrant only once when the incident she refers took place. She adopted her witness statement and referred to her written statements to the LAS investigation made on 6 December 2020 and on 29 March 2021.

51. CJ told the Panel about an incident involving the Registrant on 6 December 2020 in the mess room of the ambulance station. She told the Panel that on the morning of 6 December 2020, a group of staff were in the mess room, including the Registrant. There were other staff members present.

52. CJ said that the Registrant was talking in a low voice and CJ thought that she heard her say something along the lines of, “if my son was as dumb as that…”, and she was making reference to CJ’s crew mate (Person F) whom the Registrant was looking at when she said it. CJ was unable to hear the rest of the Registrant’s sentence, but said to her “Sorry, what did you say?” and she replied, “I wasn’t talking to you”. The Registrant’s tone was “quite blunt and a bit rude”. She had said to the Registrant “Sorry, I must have misheard you” and then CJ got up and left. Her crew mate later said to her that the Registrant had been rude to him.

53. CJ said that the Registrant’s comments had made her crew mate (Person F) feel very uncomfortable and her actions had been unprofessional. She said she did not know what the Registrant was trying to accomplish by making such comments. It was clear her crew mate was upset by this situation as he did not understand why the Registrant had made these comments in the mess room and could not understand what the Registrant was hoping to accomplish.

54. In cross examination CJ accepted it had been a busy mess room and she had not heard the whole sentence, but she thought she had heard the Registrant say what she later reported later that day, after having discussed it with her team leader. She did so as her crew mate had felt so uncomfortable about the comments.

Witness – (Person G)

55. Person G is a registered Paramedic, and he conducted the LAS investigation in respect of the Registrant. Person G was the Registrant’s line manager, and he had worked with her for several years. He has worked at LAS since 2003.

56. Person G referred the Panel to the LAS Dignity at Work Policy which applied to all employees at LAS. In November 2020, Person G had been asked by his line manger to investigate allegations of bullying and harassment by the Registrant. He conducted interviews with those who had made complaints and with witnesses. The aim of the investigation was to consider whether the Registrant had breached the Dignity at Work Policy, whether any bulling and harassment had occurred and to prepare a report to inform whether a disciplinary procedure would follow. Person G stated that he had some experience of conducting similar investigations.

57. Person G said the area that they covered including Whipps Cross and Walthamstow, was a busy complex with about thirty Paramedics. He explained that he had interviewed Person A, B, D and Witnesses 1 and 6 as part of his investigation. Transcripts of the interviews were made at the time and Person G said that copies were provided to witnesses to ensure accuracy.

58. Person G stated that the Registrant refused, despite a number of requests by him in April, July, October and November 2021, to be interviewed as part of his investigation. She said that she was not required to attend for interview, and she had refused to do so. She had also disputed the validity of the investigation, and as a result Person G said she was not interviewed by him.

59. Person G was not sure whether there were cameras in the station at the time. He accepted that strong bonds can be formed with colleagues given the working pattern. He said he did not socialise with his colleagues, and they were not his friends. Person G said he did not consider his relationship with colleagues was an issue as he had been away for five years, and he felt that he was impartial. He was aware that some colleagues did not get on with each other, but he reiterated that he had been away at another station for five years returning shortly before these events.

60. Person G said he was not aware of earlier complaints about the Registrant in 2017 in 2018 as he had not been working there at that time. He was not aware that the Registrant had apparently complained previously about being ostracised by colleagues and had raised formal concerns about Person E bullying her. Person G said he was not aware that an earlier investigation had apparently concluded that there was no evidence and there had been a breakdown in relationships.

61. Person G said he was not aware of the Registrant reporting PH, Person E and Person D in 2020 for negative behaviour, or the outcome of any previous investigations. He was not sure whether he had been aware she was on a final written warning for a clinical issue issued in September 2020, but that if it was clinical it would not have been relevant to his investigation.

62. Person G was not aware she had asked for a transfer to another station as he did not have access to the transfer register. He was not aware of the advice the Registrant claims she was given by the Head of HR to try to be friends or that it then changed to her not needing to be friends with colleagues.

63. Person G said that when he wrote to the Registrant on 28 April 2021, he had interviewed the others. He denied that he had reached a view as the Registrant’s evidence was part of the investigation, and it was her right to reply.

Application to receive further evidence

64. Mr Pataky applied to receive into evidence certain unused material from the LAS investigation. He sought to have received two single pages of an interview record dated 13 March 2021 between Person G and Witness 4 and with Witness 3 during the LAS investigation. He submitted this was relevant to allegation 10 and it was fair to the Registrant for the Panel to consider this evidence. He submitted that these were two of the people in the mess room during one of the alleged incidents. He submitted that he had put to Person D in cross examination the issue about the responses made by these two witnesses.

65. Mr Barnfield submitted that the important issue was the context of the document and what the whole interview record states. He was neutral as to the application.

66. The Panel accepted the legal advice of the Legal Assessor who reminded it about the importance of fairness and relevance. He also reminded the Panel about the guidance in Enemuwe v NMC [2015] EWHC 2081 (Admin) as to the irrelevance of the decision and findings of earlier investigations.

67. The Panel was concerned about the lateness of this application but was mindful of importance of fairness. The Panel has heard from Person G, who conducted the interviews of these two witnesses, and his evidence about the interviews can be tested, albeit in a limited way as the witnesses themselves are not present. The Panel has already heard evidence about the LAS investigation and these documents appear to be relevant as they relate to that investigation and to the wider background and context of the current allegations.

68. The Panel concluded that it appears this evidence is relevant, of assistance and that it is fair to admit. Whilst these documents are not the findings of the LAS investigation, which Enemuwe makes clear are irrelevant, the Panel was mindful that it is the primary fact finder. It will treat this evidence with some caution. Once all the evidence is heard, the Panel will decide what weight, if any, to attach to this evidence.

Cross examination of Witness (Person G) continued

69. In relation to the interview record with Witness 3, Person G confirmed that she had said to him that the Registrant had not spoken to anyone else in the mess room other than her and Witness 4, and she had stated to him that she did not think the Registrant had been disrespectful to Person D, and her conduct was a “normal occurrence”. Person G confirmed that Witness 4 had stated to him at the interview that he had not noticed whether the Registrant had been disrespectful to anyone in the mess room that day, and he had not seen any actions by the Registrant to “single anyone out”.

The Registrant’s Evidence

70. The Registrant adopted her two witness statements as her evidence in chief. The Registrant said that she has no previous FTP findings, convictions or cautions against her and has no restrictions on her practice. The Registrant denied all the allegations and stated in her written statement that she had no recollection of bullying anyone or being unprofessional to colleagues.

71. The Registrant told the panel about a previous disciplinary matter regarding clinical issues, and which resulted in her receiving a final written warning from LAS on 22 September 2020. She also told the panel about the complaint that Person E had made against her. She said she worked about 11 shifts with Person E when Person E was a student Paramedic, and four shifts with Person B. She had not worked a shift with PH, Person D or CJ.

72. The Registrant told the Panel about an incident in 2017 when her windscreen wipers on the car had been tampered with in the LAS station. She reported this and claimed it was a colleague, whom she said was a friend of PH. She had also raised a concern in October 2017 and February 2018 about colleagues ostracising her and ignoring her. She said that she was referring to Person E, PH, Person D and many others, and said that they had made her feel uncomfortable. The Registrant said she had raised a further concern in January 2020 alleging that Person E was bullying and harassing her and said it was “unbearable”. In April 2020 she had attended her GP feeling stressed, depressed and unable to concentrate at work for which she received treatment.

73. The Registrant stated that in June 2020 she had told LAS that she was thinking of leaving due to her treatment by Person E and Person D and she had asked for a transfer to another station. In March 2021 she had contacted another station directly as she was “desperate” to transfer. The Registrant referred to a number of character references from two former colleagues, from her current manager and from her son.

74. In cross examination, the Registrant said she initially had a good working relationship with PH, but he had become hostile when he worked with Person D. She said she had only ever had one conversation with Person D and had no relationship with Person D. The Registrant said that the relationship with Person B broke down “on Person B’s side”. She said she had improved her relationship with one colleague by speaking with him, and said she was professional at all times.

75. The Registrant said that she had not cooperated with the LAS investigation as she did not know what it was about. She did accept that in the November 2021 she had received an email from LAS listing a number of allegations asking her to respond, and that she had made some notes in response. She said she did not leave the station as she had done nothing wrong and had left after she had been dismissed.

76. The Registrant was referred to, and she accepted that in an email to LAS dated 20 January 2020 she had said her manager that PN had treated her “badly” and “discriminates me”. She also accepted that she said in that email that PN had made her feel untrusted. She also said another colleague, MH, had been “unfair” and “hostile” to her.

77. The Registrant stated that she accepted no responsibility, or that she played any part in the breakdown of her relationships with many of her colleagues. She accepted that all of this caused her to feel belittled, embarrassed and anxious. She accepted that bullying behaviour could impact on patient care.

78. The Registrant said she had never seen the Dignity at Work policy until these allegations arose, but she accepted the definitions and examples of bullying and harassment explained in the policy. She did not apologise to Person B as he had left and said that she could not apologise for something she had not done.

79. The Registrant said there was no “mess room” culture at LAS as they all got along and there was no hierarchy. She said her behaviour was “extremely exemplary.” She accepted that none of her character referees had worked with her at LAS. She said that her colleagues had lied to the Panel and had bullied her. She said that Person G, Person E, Person D, and PH and CJ were all part of the group that bullied her.

80. The Registrant said swearing at colleagues was unprofessional and, if aggressive, it could be bullying. She denied ever using the word “cunt.” She said Person E and other colleagues had fabricated evidence against her. She accepted that staring intently or standing very close to someone could be intimidating “if you felt that way”. She denied ever staring at colleagues as alleged and said she had no recollection of the alleged conduct. She said that laughing and pointing at someone without explanation could be strange, but that was not bullying. The Registrant agreed that pushing in ahead of others in a queue at the hospital as alleged would be unprofessional, but it had never happened.

81. The Registrant said that the written list of complaints about her that Person E had submitted to LAS was entirely fabricated. She denied gossiping and calling Person E a “husband stealer,” although there had been rumours about Person E. She denied discussing Person B with her daughter or saying to him that “Bumble” was a site “for gay men”. She said that Person B takes “umbridge” with female Paramedics and with seniority, and that he did not want to work with her. She denied saying to Person B that she did not trust him and said that if he wanted to make things awkward “that was for him”.

82. The Registrant said that Person B had issues with female crew members and that he did not engage with her and did not give her a chance. The Registrant said that CJ was part of the conspiracy against her, and that CJ had lied in her evidence.

83. In response to Panel questions, the Registrant said that she felt targeted because she had been at the station for a long time and that her colleagues had all “followed suit.” She said that they were all friends, and so if one of them did not like you, they all didn’t like you. She said she was surprised by the allegations made about her and she was upset. She said she had not been supported by management and just wanted to get on with everyone “like the good old days.”

Closing Submissions on the facts

84. Mr Barnfield for the HCPC reminded the Panel of the standard and burden of proof. He submitted that the meaning of “bullying” was a matter for the Panel and although the LAS Dignity at Work policy may be of assistance, it was not the only definition. He submitted that the Panel should apply the everyday meaning of the word. He submitted that there was a pattern of conduct by the Registrant that was designed to intimidate someone perceived to be weaker. It was designed to belittle, it was hostile and was designed to humiliate, directly or indirectly, and could be done silently and in upspoken ways.

85. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Panel should consider the number of witnesses the Panel has heard from and submitted that they were colleagues not conspirators. He submitted there was a ring of truth about the evidence from the witnesses. The allegations were “black and white” issues, the Registrant either did or did not do what is alleged. He submitted that the witnesses had been detailed and had all told the truth.

86. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant was keen to stress her length of service, and he had noted that she mentioned it at least four or five times. He said that she had emphasised her experience and he invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant was concerned with seniority despite denying such. He submitted that time and again, the Registrant had drawn a distinction between herself and younger colleagues, suggestive of an attitude of “her and them”.

87. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant gave her evidence in an intense manner and appeared to have a habit of causing frictions and falling out with people. There was a pattern. He submitted that several witnesses for the HCPC said that initially they had got on well with the Registrant but over time the relationship deteriorated. PH was clear he tried to avoid friction as did others, and that despite him trying to avoid conflict it was the Registrant who stopped talking to him. Person D, Person B and Person E all said that initially they had a good relationship with the Registrant. The common denominator was the Registrant.

88. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant’s evidence was limited, and she could not bring any witnesses to speak on her behalf about the incidents or her conduct. The Registrant’s position was that all the witnesses for the HCPC are in a conspiracy, and all lied. All have denied doing so. PH attended from his holiday and Person E attended whilst pregnant. Person E had left her job due to the Registrant, which was not the action of a bully. Person B gave his evidence in a gentle and constrained manner, he was balanced and straightforward. Person D said she was sad about the issues, and she had no desire to see anyone lose their job. None of the witnesses exhibited malice or vindictiveness.

89. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant seeks that the Panel find Person G was part of the conspiracy and that CJ was also lying because she crewed with the son of another witness. He submitted that the Registrant’s case seemed to be that being friendly with colleagues meant that you are prepared to lie in court for them and to conspire with others to do so.

90. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant appeared willing to lump people together and see them all as being against her. The Registrant had accused several colleagues of singling her out and bullying her, some were managers at LAS whom the Panel did not hear from. He submitted that the Registrant seemed to perceive whole groups of colleagues as being against her.

91. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant’s use of the word “cunt” was supported by the witnesses. PH in particular had proffered unprompted evidence about the Registrant using that word to him about two of her colleagues. He submitted that the use of that aggressive and mean word was intimidating and bullying. Person E told the Panel that the Registrant had physically intimidated her. What Person E described would be a bizarre thing to make up. He submitted that the staring alleged was intimidating and was bullying, as credibly described by PH and Person D.

92. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant had chosen to repeat in her evidence the rumour about Person E and the “husband stealer” comments that she denied saying. He submitted that the Registrant in doing so had sought to harm Person E. Mr Barnfield submitted that those comments were unprofessional, critical, divisive, rude and offensive. He submitted that the comment the Registrant made to Person B about nor trusting him was also unprofessional and bullying. That comment was designed to undermine and harm Person B, as were the comments about the dating app and mental health. The Registrant had appeared amused by Person B, he was a “curiosity” to her. She was rude and unprofessional and what she did and said was designed to cause harm to Person B.

93. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant in her evidence repeated with relish rumours about two colleagues and that indicated her rude and unprofessional attitude to colleagues and demonstrated her willingness to gossip and to divide.

94. Mr Barnfield reminded the Panel about the Registrant’s attitude to the investigation by Person G. She felt singled out and she had challenged the validity of the investigation. He submitted that some of the information about that investigation was consistent with what the Panel has heard from Person D.

95. Mr Barnfield said that the Registrant’s case that many of her colleagues, would lie and single her out was patent nonsense. He submitted that there was a pattern of hostile, rude, unprofessional and bullying conduct by the Registrant towards her colleagues. She deliberately excluded colleagues by her conduct. The evidence about the Registrant came from many witnesses and was not fabricated. It was detailed and credible evidence. The Registrant had accepted no responsibility for the breakdown in her relationship with her colleagues. Mr Barnfield invited the Panel to find all of the allegations proved.

96. Mr Pataky for the Registrant submitted that the HCPC must prove the allegations, and the onus is on the HCPC. It is not for the Registrant to prove the contrary. He asked the Panel to consider whether the evidence is sufficiently credible. He submitted that the Panel must consider the lengthy background to the present allegation, being the extensive difficulties in the relationships between the Registrant and the witnesses. He submitted that there was a lengthy history of ill-feeling towards the Registrant by Person E, Person D and PH. He submitted that enveloped every aspect of this case and was the motivation for the fabrication of incidents, as well as the distortion and exaggeration of events. He submitted that the complaints of bullying made by the Registrant must be taken account of.

97. Mr Pataky said the prospect that the Registrant had bullied all of these people was remote. He said the witnesses cast the victim, the Registrant, as the perpetrator. Her position is that she was advised by management not to engage with Person D and Person E and she denies all of the allegations. She did not deliberately intend to bully anyone and apologises.

98. Mr Pataky said there was some common ground. There was a relationship between the majority of HCPC witnesses. Person D, Person E and PH, were friends and none of them liked the Registrant. He submitted that was important as it provides the context of the allegations and the motive for the raising of the allegations. The relationship difficulties were long standing, and he submitted that it was significant Person E and Person D accepted that they “blanked” and ignored the Registrant. The Registrant had made complaints about that.

99. Mr Pataky submitted that the Registrant was advised twice by LAS in 2018 and 2020 to the effect that the Registrant did not have to speak to Person D or Person E, and Person E appears to have received the same advice. Mr Pataky said Person G had no apparent knowledge of the background when he investigated the complaints. The Registrant has explained why she did not engage with that investigation.

100. Mr Pataky submitted that the Panel should take account of that fact that there are limited contemporaneous records of the events. There were no independent records, and he submitted that was “peculiar.” He submitted that the absence of the documentation meant it was inconceivable that no records would be made at the time. He said the document recording the alleged incidents made by Person E was not contemporaneous and could not be relied upon and was not credible. It was an exaggeration of events and Person E’s evidence was not reliable.

101. Mr Pataky submitted that the chronology of events was highly relevant. He submitted this disclosed a story of collaboration between witnesses and by those who did not like the Registrant. He submitted that the events had been invented, distorted and exaggerated, and this cast substantial doubt on the evidence of the HCPC witnesses. The HCPC witnesses were friends, and he submitted that resulted in motivation by them to manufacture allegations and distort events. He submitted that Person B and CJ had limited contact with the Registrant and that meant that each had been influenced by others to say what they said. Mr Pataky said the coincidence of complaints was highly unlikely, and that the evidence supported the view that there was collaboration between the witnesses.

102. Mr Pataky said the Registrant's evidence was consistent and she had reflected on her conduct. She remained at a loss as to why these allegations arose. He submitted that the Registrant was open and unguarded when giving her evidence, and he invited the Panel to accept her evidence in full.

103. Mr Pataky submitted that in respect of each allegation what is said is not true. He submitted that the Panel should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words “bully” and “unprofessional.” He submitted that the LAS definition appeared to conflate bullying and harassment.

104. Mr Pataky invited the Panel to reject the evidence of Person D whom he submitted was guarded and uncomfortable and vague. He said that the evidence of Person E and Person D was not credible or reliable, and the Panel should prefer the evidence of the Registrant in respect of each allegation. He submitted that the absence of any contemporaneous record was significant. He submitted that the allegation about the Registrant’s use of the word “cunt” was simply made up.

105. Mr Pataky said that Person B’s evidence was questionable given his limited contact with the Registrant and that he had continued to work with her. That undermined the credibility of his evidence, as did the fact that his complaint coincided with the complaint by Person D. His evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. Mr Pataky submitted that PH’s evidence must be seen in light of his apparent reluctance to sign his witness statement. He submitted that PH, Person E and Person D recollections of events were so different that they were unreliable.

106. Mr Pataky invited the Panel to prefer the evidence of the Registrant, to find that the HCPC witnesses were not credible or reliable, and to find none of the allegation proved. He invited the Panel to place weight on the testimonials provided by the Registrant.

Decision on Facts

107. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He reminded the Panel of the onus and burden of proof. The Registrant need prove nothing. He referred to R. (on the application of Dutta) v The GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) and Suddock v NMC 2015 EWHC 3612 (Admin) regarding the assessment of witnesses. He also reminded the Panel of the irrelevance of the outcome of the LAS investigation and the need to be cautious in respect of the hearsay evidence it has heard. He provided a good character direction in respect of the Registrant. He advised the Panel to use the plain and ordinary dictionary meaning of the words “unprofessional” and “bullying”. He advised that one definition of bullying is by ACAS who describe it as conduct or behaviour that is unwanted behaviour from a person that is offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting, or an abuse or misuse of power that undermines, humiliates, or causes physical or emotional harm to someone, but he reminded the Panel that was not an exhaustive, binding or definitive meaning.

108. The Panel was mindful of the legal advice and the guidance in the case law. It assessed all of the evidence in the round and took account of the context of allegations. Whilst it considered each allegation in turn, it took the view that what is alleged can properly be seen as a course of conduct and behaviour of a similar character and nature by the Registrant over a period between 2018 to 2020.

109. Particulars 2, 12 and 13 all allege non-verbal bullying and unprofessional behaviour by staring at colleagues. Particulars 4 and 11 both allege the use of the word “cunt” by the Registrant in respect of colleagues. Particulars 6, 7 and 8 allege a course of conduct specifically directed at Person B that took place within the short period of time when she was crewed with Person B.

110. The Registrant defends her case largely by denying that the incidents took place at all. She asserts incidents have been fabricated by collusion between witnesses who have lied to the Panel. She also states that she cannot recall a number of the alleged incidents. She alleges that she was the victim, and that she was bullied by Person E and Person D. She asserts that these two, and at times others including PH and Person G, colluded with one another to lie when making complaints about her. Her position was that these colleagues were all friends, that they all disliked her, that they bullied her and that together they fabricated evidence to accuse her of bullying.

111. The Registrant said that Person G and PH were also part of this group who had all lied about her conduct, motivated by their common dislike of her. She said that Person B was not part of that friendship group, but that he took “umbridge” at her and disliked being crewed with a female.

112. The Panel took account of what was described by the Registrant as a long history of poor relationships between the parties, particularly between her, Person E and Person D. The Panel were told that accusations of bullying were also made by the Registrant against Person E and Person D. The Panel was mindful that it is not part of its role to decide whether the Registrant was the victim of bullying. That is not the question before this Panel, and it does not provide an answer to the allegations. Being the victim of bullying does not exclude the possibility of also being a bully. The issue is not a binary one, and those positions are not mutually exclusive.

113. The Panel was mindful of the guidance in Suddock and Dutta when assessing the witness evidence and also assessing the context of behaviour. It was mindful of considering any contemporaneous documents, and the inherent probabilities and improbabilities of accounts of events, as well as consistencies and inconsistencies in the evidence, both internally, and with the evidence of other witnesses and with any documentation.

Particular 1 - On or around 28 May 2018 you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour when talking to Person D, when you described Person E as a “husband stealer” or words to that effect

114. The Panel heard from the Registrant and from Person E and Person D. Person D said that the Registrant said to her what is alleged. She then told Person E who also recounted it to the Panel. There is a written note by Person E, recording that on the date alleged Person D told Person E that the Registrant has said to Person D - “you need to watch out for your new crew mate she steals other people’s husbands.” These notes were kept by Person E on the advice of her managers following concerns she had raised about the Registrant’s conduct towards her. Person E accepted that these notes were not wholly contemporaneous notes, but they were clearly made by her at a time far closer to the events in question than this hearing. They are however largely consistent with her live evidence and with that of Person D.

115. The Registrant denied making this comment and said that Person E and Person D were both lying. In her evidence the Registrant told the Panel that there were rumours about Person E being unfaithful and having sex with married men. The Registrant went into some detail about these rumours regarding Person E and stated that she had no interest in them and would not repeat them. However, it was apparent to the Panel that the Registrant was willing to repeat these lurid rumours under oath as part of her denial that she had called Person E a “husband stealer”.

116. The Panel found that the Registrant’s evidence demonstrated ill will towards Person E and Person D. The Registrant demonstrated in her evidence a desire to paint Person E in a poor light. The rumour she repeated in her evidence was directly linked to the content of the comments it is alleged she made, but which she denies having made. The Panel did not find the Registrant’s position credible or reliable. It did not believe the Registrant. Indeed, the Panel found that the Registrant’s evidence repeating the rumours undermined her own denial and supported, to an extent, the credibility of the evidence it heard from Person E and Person D. There was a consistency between the evidence of Person E and Person D and the rumour that the Registrant denied expressing to Person D.

117. The Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did make the comment about Person E to Person D. This particular is proved. The Panel found those comments were crude and nasty, they were intended to denigrate Person E, to undermine Person E and to be divisive. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the comments were unprofessional and amounted to bullying.

Particular 2 - On more than one occasion you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person D and/or Person E when you:

a) stared at them;

b) laughed at them.

118. The Panel heard from Persons D, Person E and from the Registrant. D and E were clear and the Panel found their evidence about what took place was cogent. The Panel found D and E were open and honest and it found their evidence was credible. There was a strong consistency in their independent accounts of the Registrant regularly “sniggering” and laughing at them and staring at them.

119. The Registrant denies the particular and states that D and E were both lying. Person D said this behaviour by the Registrant was typical of what took place many times. The Panel believed the evidence of Persons D and E and it found no proper or credible basis for the view that they had colluded and/or lied. The Panel found this proved and that the conduct by the Registrant was intended to denigrate, offend and intimidate Persons D and E. The Panel found that the conduct was unprofessional, and it amounted to bullying.

Particular 3 - On a date in summer 2018 you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person E and/or Person D, in front of patients, when you:

a) attempted to handover a patient at hospital ahead of Person E and Person D;

b) said “alright keep your hair on” or words to that effect.

120. Person E explained this incident in some detail in her evidence. She described what took place and her surprise at the behaviour of the Registrant. The Registrant denies the particular and states that she did not “push in” but said in her evidence that there was an “altercation” at the time. The Panel heard differing accounts of this alleged incident from Person E, Person D and from the Registrant.

121. The Panel decided that there appeared to be different recollections of the incident. It could not reconcile those accounts and could not exclude the real possibility of a misunderstanding between the parties. The Panel decided, on balance, that the HCPC had failed to discharge the burden of proof on this particular and it found this not proved:

Particular 4 - On or around 26 February 2019 you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person E when you:

a) kicked Person E’s bag;

b) called Person E a “cunt”.

122. Person E’s evidence was that she heard the Registrant use the word “cunt” at her and then deliberately kick her bag as she walked past. The Registrant denied ever using the word alleged. The Panel found Person E’s evidence to be open and credible in her evidence about this incident. She was visibly distressed at times when giving her evidence, despite the passage of time.

123. The Panel found Person E to be open and straightforward in her evidence. It found that she did not seek to exaggerate or embellish on what she had earlier recorded in her written list of incidents, including this incident. Those records, albeit not entirely contemporaneous, were made much closer to the time of the incident and they were largely consistent with Person E’s live evidence.

124. The Panel did not find that Person E demonstrated ill will or malice towards the Registrant. Person E described feeling “defeated” by the Registrant and said that she (Person E) had ultimately left LAS as a direct result of the Registrant’s behaviour towards her. She described the Registrant’s conduct as “baffling.”

125. Person D also gave evidence about this incident. Her evidence was that she had heard the Registrant say “cunt” to Person E and then had seen her kick Person E’s bag. The Panel found Person D and Person E’s accounts to be consistent and credible and it accepted their evidence.

126. The Registrant denied that the incident ever took place and said that Persons D and E were colluding, lying and that they were bullying her.

127. The Panel considered the Registrant’s continued assertions of collusion, fabrication of incidents and lying, by Person E and Person D in particular. That assertion was made during the Registrant’s evidence to include several other witnesses, PH and Person G and other LAS managers from whom the Panel did not hear. It appeared to the Panel that the Registrant’s assertions about lying and collusion by others were widened during the hearing to include any witness with whom she disagreed.

128. The Panel did not find that the Registrant’s assertions that colleagues bore her ill will was demonstrated by any of the witnesses. Person D, Person E and PH all said that initially their relationship with the Registrant was not an issue, and that it was the Registrant’s subsequent behaviour and conduct towards them that had caused a deterioration in the relationship. Person G and PH both said that whilst they were colleagues with the other witnesses, they were not all friends. PH said in his live evidence that he was aware of difficulties between the Registrant and Person D. He said he had made a point of stating to the Registrant when her worked with her, that his knowledge of that issue would not interfere with his professional relationship with the Registrant or with Person D.

129. The Registrant defence was largely based upon her assertion that Person E and Person D bullied her, that they had colluded and that both had lied about the alleged incidents because they were friends, and they all disliked her. The Registrant added Person G and PH into that group, including them in the organised collusion and lying by witnesses, apparently in part because they had all attended a wedding together.

130. The Panel did not find that position to be plausible or credible. The Panel found no reliable or credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that supported such a position. It found it inherently unlikely and improbable that four witnesses would collude and that all would lie under oath. Any motive for these four witnesses to collude and to lie, in addition to Person B whom the Registrant also asserted had lied, was not clear. The Panel noted that it was Person E who had subsequently left the service as a result of the alleged bullying by the Registrant.

131. The Panel was mindful that most of the witnesses from LAS - Person D, Person E, Person G, CJ and PH – are all registered HCPC Paramedics. They attended this hearing and gave evidence under oath to their own regulator. The Panel found that it was inherently improbable and unlikely that these professional witnesses would collude, fabricate incidents, attend this hearing and perjure themselves by lying to their regulator under oath. The Panel found the Registrant’s assertion about collusion and lying by witnesses was not credible or reliable and it did not accept her position.

132. The Panel found this particular proved. The Panel did not believe the Registrant. Her conduct was aggressive and nasty, and it was unprofessional and amounted to bullying.

Particular 6 - On 13 October 2020, you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour when you said to Person B about his use of dating sites that, "you had discussed this with your daughter and that this was a dating site for gay men”, or words to that effect

133. The Panel found that Person B’s evidence about this incident was measured, balanced, clear and cogent. There was no indication that he bore any malice or ill will to the Registrant. He had worked with her for only a short time. He was not part of the “friends” group that the Registrant claimed existed and whom she asserted all lied about her. Person B recalled the incident clearly and he did not seek to embellish. He described her comments as “weird” and that the Registrant was “almost laughing and her tone was judgemental.” He was fair, accepting that he might have been overreacting, but said that her behaviour had made him feel embarrassed and uncomfortable.

134. The Registrant said she had vague recollection of this incident. In her live evidence she was critical of Person B. She appeared to bear him some ill will, asserting that he did not like working with females, and she said that he had taken “umbridge” with her. That evidence was not put to Person B and the Panel did not find it credible. The Panel did not believe the Registrant.

135. Person B put in a complaint to LAS about the Registrant’s conduct and the alleged comments. His live evidence was consistent with his interview with Person G, as recorded in Person G’s notes dated shortly after on 26 October 2020. The Panel found Person B’s evidence to be credible, reliable and consistent. It preferred it to the Registrant’s evidence and it found this proved. The Panel found that the conduct was patronising and rude and that it sought to denigrate, humiliate and embarrass Person B. Person B’s evidence was that it did so. The Panel found that conduct was unprofessional and that it was bullying.

Particular 7 On 14 October 2020, your behaviour was bullying and/or unprofessional when:

a) You made comments about Person B ‘deciding to show up’, or words to that effect.

b) You said to Person B, “People with Mental Health Issues shouldn’t be in the Job” or words to that effect

136. The Panel has found Person B to be a credible and reliable witness who was open and straightforward when giving his evidence. The Registrant said she had made the comment about being late in a “jokey” way. Person B said she was not jokey. He said he had felt humiliated and belittled by the comments the Registrant later made regarding mental health following him receiving news of the death of a friend. His live evidence was consistent with the notes of his interview by Person G dated 26 October 2020.

137. The Registrant denied that she made the comment about mental health. The Panel preferred the evidence of Person B and accepted his evidence. The comments were rude, denigrating, insensitive and judgemental and the Panel found they were unprofessional and were bullying.

Particular 8 - On 20 October 2020, you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person B when you asked to check his paperwork as you didn’t trust him and said, “so need to check that you’ve put everything, you are welcome to datix me asking to see your paperwork”, or words to that effect.

138. Person B gave his evidence in a fair and balanced way and he readily accepted that the Registrant was entitled to check his paperwork. He made clear in his evidence that he did not object to that. His evidence was that the Registrant made the statement about not trusting him in front of a patient. That is the mischief in this particular. Person B told Person G when interviewed, and he told this Panel, that he had felt belittled, humiliated and judged by the Registrant. He reported to Person G that his interactions with the Registrant had been “extremely detrimental” to his wellbeing.

139. The Registrant denied this. She gave a long explanation about the location where she had asked Person B to check his paperwork and why. That was not to the point. She denied saying she did not trust him. Person B swiftly reported this incident and made a complaint about her. His evidence was consistent with what he set out in the email of 21 February 2021 to a manager at LAS, and with the notes of his interview with Person G on 26 October 2020 as part of the LAS investigation.

140. The Panel found this proved. It preferred the evidence of Person B. This conduct by the Registrant was designed to undermine, embarrass and humiliate Person B and to publicly question his professional ability and integrity. It was unprofessional and it was bullying behaviour.

Particular 9 - On 21 October 2020 you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour when you said to Person B “Person C was sleeping with half the LAS and MPS, even though she looks like a man”, or words to that effect.

141. The Panel heard from Person B, about what the Registrant said to him about Person C. This live evidence was consistent with the interview notes made by Person G on 26 October 2020.

142. The Registrant denied the particular. She then recounted in her live evidence to the Panel lurid rumours about Person C which included accusations that she was unfaithful. The Registrant said she would not repeat this and had no interest in it. However, the Panel found that the Registrant’s willingness to repeat this rumour about Person C in her defence tended to support rather than undermine the evidence of Person B, whom the Panel found was credible and reliable.

143. The Panel found it more likely than not that the Registrant did say what is alleged, or words to that effect, to Person B. It found this proved. The conduct was rude, insulting, nasty and designed to denigrate Person C and it was unprofessional and bullying.

Particular 10 - On 21 October 2020, you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person D specifically, you walked through the messroom at Whipps Cross and deliberately ignored Person D as an act of exclusion.

144. This alleges what can be described as non-verbal, intimidating behaviour. Person D described this incident in some detail as to how the Registrant had said “Hi” to colleagues and then looked at her and “made it very clear that she did not want to acknowledge me” and then laughed as she left. Person D described this making her feel “awful” and that she had “had enough. “ This evidence is consistent with the statement made by Person D to Person G on 24 October 2020. Person D described feeling “embarrassed, angry, frustrated, upset and stressed” by this behaviour and that she dreaded going to work. The Registrant denied this and said it was another lie.

145. The Panel was referred to the interview notes taken by Person G from two other colleagues, Wisdom and Davies. They are reported as stating to Person G that this conduct was not in their view unprofessional. Those interview notes are hearsay evidence, and the Panel found they were of little assistance. Neither of these people gave evidence and their evidence could not be tested. In any event, it is for the Panel to decide the issue of fact and the opinion of untested witnesses is not relevant. The Panel attached minimal weight to this hearsay evidence.

146. The Panel preferred the evidence of Person D who was clear, credible ad reliable. The Panel found this proved. It was designed to humiliate, embarrass and denigrate Person D, and it was deliberate and designed to make her feel excluded. It was unprofessional and it was bullying behaviour.

Particular 11 - On more than one occasion you said “cunt” under your breath as you walked by Person D.

147. The Panel heard evidence from PH whom it found to be open and candid. PH gave spontaneous, unprompted evidence that the Registrant had said to him that her colleagues were “cunts”. PH did not demonstrate any ill will to the Registrant, and indeed he made a point of saying that he had said he wanted to keep out of the difficult relationship she had with Person E and Person D.

148. Whilst mindful that this specific conversation with PH is not an allegation, the Panel found the evidence to be cogent and compelling evidence as to the Registrant’s use of that word, which she denied. PH’s evidence in this regard supports the evidence of Person D and E, who also spoke in their evidence about the Registrant’s use of this word. Their evidence was consistent, and the Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did regularly use this word. It accepted the evidence of the three witnesses who reported the Registrant using this word. It did not believe the Registrant. The Panel found this particular proved.

Particular 12 - On an unknown date you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person D and Witness 1 when you sat in an ambulance next to theirs and stared at them.

149. Witness 1 (Person B), PH, and Person D gave clear and very largely consistent evidence about this incident. PH gave a detailed account of him and Person D sitting in the ambulance and being stared at by the Registrant which he described as “strange”. They had left the mess room to avoid tension and any confrontation with the Registrant, and PH described how the Registrant had then followed them out to the ambulances for no apparent reason and stared at them. Person D described the Registrant’s behaviour as “creepy” and she could not understand why the Registrant had done so.

150. The time the Registrant stared at them was estimated by PH and Person D and it was not the same. The Panel would not expect both witnesses to have identical recollections about the time period, and it found that did not overall undermine the credibility or reliability of their evidence.

151. The Panel concluded it was inherently improbable that two witnesses would collude and fabricate such an unusual incident and then lie about it consistently to their regulator. The Panel did not believe the Registrant who denied the incident took place. The Panel found that Person D and PH’s evidence was clear, credible and consistent. The Panel accepted that evidence and found this particular proved. This non-verbal conduct was designed to intimidate and humiliate, and it was unprofessional and was bullying.

Particular 13 - On 25 November 2020, you demonstrated bullying and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Person E, specifically:

a) You stood by the ambulance door and without reason stared directly at Person E in an intimidating manner;

b) You walked towards Person E and looked both ways as Person E was putting rubbish in the bin by the Mess room and/or stared at Person E and/or obstructed her movement.

152. Person E gave a clear, detailed and cogent account of this conduct, which she said was of a nature that she had witnessed more than once. She described feeling “locked in” and “shocked” by the Registrant staring directly at her. Person E described the incident in detail, how the Registrant was taller than her, had stood very close in her personal space and she described how she “froze”. She said she thought the Registrant might hit her. Person E described being “exhausted” by the Registrant’s behaviour and felt that it was about the Registrant seeking to have “power” over people.

163. Person E raised a grievance about this incident and the details she recorded in the grievance letter dated 9 December 2020 are consistent with her live evidence about particular 13(b).

164. The Registrant denied the incident. The Panel found Person E’s evidence was clear, open, credible and cogent. The Panel did not believe the Registrant. It found this particular proved and it found that the Registrant’s behaviour was deliberately intimidating, rude and aggressive. The Panel found that it was unprofessional and was bullying.

Particular 14 - On 06 December 2020, your behaviour was bullying and/or unprofessional when you said about Person F, “if my son was as dumb as that”, or words to that effect

165. The Panel heard from Person F, CJ, who was open and clear and she readily accepted that she had heard only part of a conversation. She did not have a clear recollection of the incident and accepted that she did not know the context of the part heard comment. The Registrant denied this comment was made. The Panel found that the HCPC had not provided sufficient evidence to prove this particular on the balance of probabilities. The Panel found this particular was not proved.

Submissions on Misconduct and Impairment

166. Mr Barnfield for the HCPC submitted that the findings amount to misconduct and he referred the Panel to the relevant case law. He submitted that standards of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics had been breached particularly as to the standards on working in partnership with colleagues. Her conduct had the potential to impact on patient care and was serious. He submitted that the behaviour by the Registrant amounted to misconduct and breached fundamental tenets of professional behaviour. The conduct was deliberate and intended to intimidate and cause division and she accepted no part in that during her evidence. A number of colleagues said that the Registrant’s conduct had caused them harm, and he submitted that the conduct was deplorable.

167. On the issue of current impairment, Mr Barnfield referred to the HCPC Practice Note and reminded the Panel that this was a matter for the judgement of the Panel. He submitted that the Registrant had shown persistent and deliberate behaviour. Her defence to the allegations blamed her victims and was unpleasant, deliberate and persistent. Mr Barnfield submitted that the reflective statement from the Registrant looked objectively at bullying and harassment, but there was no admission of responsibility or acceptance of blame. He submitted that harm had been caused and there was significant level of culpability. Mr Barnfield submitted that a finding of impairment was also required in the public interest.

168. Mr Pataky for the Registrant referred the Panel to the recent three testimonials. He submitted that this were from the Registrant’s current line manager in her current role and from someone who was previously her line manager at LAS. Another testimonial was from a senior clinician at LAS. He submitted all were aware of these proceedings and had read the findings on facts and had worked with the Registrant. Both speak to her professionalism, competency and skills, with one referee describing her as an outstanding practitioner with exceptional teamwork skills. They describe her as professional, approachable and polite. Mr Pataky also referred the Panel to the reflective statement and to recent training on values and behaviour, equality and diversity, bullying and harassment at work and managing conflict.

169. Mr Pataky stated that the Registrant acknowledges that the findings are serious, and she accepts that the findings amount to misconduct. She also accepts that her fitness to practice is currently impaired on public interest grounds. Mr Pataky submitted that this acceptance by the Registrant was highly material to the Panel’s assessment of impairment and the extent of that.

170. Mr Pataky invited the Panel to consider that the findings covered a relatively small number of colleagues, largely three colleagues. The events were also largely at the station itself and there was limited potential for harm and no harm to patients.

171. On the issue of impairment, Mr Pataky referred the Panel to the CHRE v Grant case and stressed that there are two separate considerations – firstly the public protection element and risk of harm, and secondly whether there is a need for a finding of impairment in the public interest. He submitted that a finding was not necessary on public protection grounds.

172. Mr Pataky submitted that there were some important elements to consider - the context, insight, the Registrant’s engagement in proceedings and the Registrant’s practice since these allegations. Mr Pataky said it was critical to consider the context and the difficult relationship with Colleagues D and E and the Registrant’s experience of bullying by those colleagues which in her evidence she said had distressed her. He reminded the Panel of the advice the Registrant had received from management not to interact with some of her colleagues which he submitted was relevant.

173. On the issue of insight, Mr Pataky submitted that the Registrant was entitled to deny and to contest the allegation and the Panel should focus on what she had done since the allegation and what steps she has taken. He asked the Panel to be mindful of the acceptance of misconduct and impairment of public interest grounds and the need in future to avoid the conduct occurring again. Since leaving LAS there is no suggestion of a repeat of the conduct or bullying. He submitted that that it is self-evident that no further concerns of this nature have arisen in the four years since. He submitted that the Registrant has substantial insight and that was material to the assessment of risk to the public.

174. Mr Pataky submitted that the Registrant has responded and reflected. She has fully engaged in these proceedings, and she has completed relevant courses since the findings of the Panel. He invited the Panel to see this as a picture of remediation.

175. Mr Pataky referred the Panel to the Registrant’s practice since 2020, as supported by the three recent testimonials. He submitted that the Registrant had continued to practice without restriction and is a highly valued practitioner described by referees as kind and respectful. He submitted that the testimonials were very positive and show that the Panel’s findings are limited to a small number of colleagues in a particular workplace, and there has been no repetition since that time of any interpersonal difficulties.

176. Mr Pataky submitted that there was good insight from the Registrant, and he asked the Panel to make a finding that there was no risk to the public and there was no impairment on public protection grounds.

Decision on Grounds

177. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the guidance in Roylance v GMC (no 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 and the importance of the conduct being sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct. He also reminded the Panel of the HCPC Practice Note on Impairment and the need to consider the central issues of insight and remediation of fitness to practise, and he referred to the guidance on assessment of impairment in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). These were matters for the professional judgement of the Panel.

178. The Panel accepted the legal advice. It considered its finding of fact and the guidance in Roylance. The Registrant accepts misconduct. The Panel has found proved a course of sustained and deliberate misconduct that was unprofessional and bullying. The Panel found that the conduct strikes at core professional values of conduct and behaviour by seeking to undermine, exclude, bully, denigrate and intimidate colleagues. The Panel found the conduct could properly be described as deplorable.

179. The Panel’s findings are serious. The Registrant’s conduct and behaviour fell far short of what would have been appropriate in the circumstances, and it amounted to misconduct.

180. The Panel also found that the Registrant had breached the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016), Standards 2.6, 2.8 and 9.1, and the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics, Standards 8.3, 10.1 and 14.5 :-

2.6 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.

2.8 You must treat your colleagues in a professional manner showing them respect and consideration.

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

8.3 understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an autonomous practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team

10.1 understand the value of reflective practice and the need to record the outcome of such reflection to support continuous improvement

14.5 establish safe environments for practice, which appropriately manage risk

Decision on Impairment

181. The Panel accepted the legal advice and considered the submissions from both parties. It was mindful of the guidance in Grant and the HCPC Practice Note on impairment. It considered its findings and was of the view that the misconduct is remediable, although being attitudinal in nature it may not be easy to do so. The Panel considered whether the misconduct has been remedied, and it assessed the Registrant’s insight.

182. The Panel has found that the conduct and behaviour is serious, and it was deliberate and persistent. The Panel considered the reflective piece from the Registrant and the three positive, recent testimonials. The Panel found that the Registrant has recognised the gravity of the Panel’s findings, and she has completed relevant training, including on bullying behaviour and conflict resolution. The recent testimonials from colleagues, who are aware of the findings in this case, indicate a level of remediation of her practice. The Registrant has not repeated the conduct and behaviour. Her colleagues speak well of her, both professionally and personally.

183. However, the Panel found the reflective piece somewhat limited. The Panel found that the Registrant did not demonstrate good insight into why she acted as she did towards her colleagues at the time. She does not express remorse or apologies, and she does not appear to have fully reflected on the context or demonstrated an understanding of her conduct and behaviour at the time. She does not appear to accept that she bullied her colleagues.

184. Teamwork and good communication between colleagues is conducive to good clinical care, and the human factor the Registrant introduced to the team was highly toxic and destabilising. It seriously risked undermining the quality of patient care. She has not demonstrated to the Panel that should similar circumstances to those at LAS arise again in the future, she has the insight and strategies to avoid repeating her misconduct.

185. The Panel concluded that, whilst the Registrant has shown some developing insight and has taken positive steps to improve and develop her practice, her lack of good insight into her misconduct remains a concern. She has not fully addressed or acknowledged her culpability for her persistent and deliberate misconduct which undermined crucial teamwork and placed her colleagues at risk of harm. Her misconduct also potentially placed patients at risk of harm.

186. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the lack of well-developed insight means that there remains a real risk that the Registrant will in the future repeat the misconduct and in doing so once again place patients and colleagues at risk of harm. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired on the personal component.

187. As regards the wider public interest element of impairment, the Panel was satisfied that a well informed and reasonable member of the public would be most concerned about the Registrant’s persistent and deliberate misconduct. The Panel was satisfied that the conduct was such that it is liable to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public confidence in the profession.

188. The Panel was mindful of the advice in Grant where it is stated that ““the critically important public policy issues which are: the need to protect the individual and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour which the public expect…and that the public interest includes amongst other things the protection of service users and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession.”

189. The Panel concluded that not to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards. The Panel therefore found impairment on the public interest element.

Submissions on Sanction

190. The Panel heard from both parties on the issue of sanction. Mr Barnfield for the HCPC submitted that sanction was a matter for the Panel, and he did not advocate for a particular sanction. He referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Guidance and to the need for proportionality. He referred to the Sanctions Policy regarding the issue of recognition of failings by a Registrant and insight. He suggested that the pattern of unprofessional behaviour and lack of insight found by the Panel may be aggravating features.

191. Mr Pataky for the Registrant submitted that the Panel must act proportionately. He referred to the Sanctions Guidance but pointed out that it was guidance only and may be departed from. He invited the Panel to consider the time that has passed since the events proved. He submitted that since then, four years ago, no similar concerns had arisen and that there had been no repetition. He submitted that was a significant mitigating factor and the process itself was a salutary lesson for the Registrant.

192. Mr Pataky submitted that the circumstances now were wholly different from that at LAS where there were long standing issues with Colleagues D and E and the effect of those circumstances. He submitted that those circumstances were a mitigating factor, and the environment had not been supportive.

193. Mr Pataky submitted that the findings already made were significant of themselves, and he invited the Panel to recognise the findings will impact on the Registrant and go some way to satisfying the public interest. He submitted that further mitigation was found in the acceptance by the Registrant of misconduct and impairment on public interest grounds.

194. Mr Pataky referred to the HCPC Sanctions guidance. He submitted there had been no abuse of trust and no repetition since the events. As regards insight, Mr Pataky submitted insight was developing and the Registrant had accepted the situation was “unacceptable”. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant has undertaken some remediation.

195. Mr Pataky submitted that it was accepted that no action and a Caution Order may likely not be acceptable, nor were Conditions. He submitted that if a Suspension Order is what the Panel considers appropriate, he invited the Panel to limit that to 4 to 6 months suspension which would be proportionate and sufficient and would allow the deficits identified by the Panel to be addressed. He stressed that the Panel had found the Registrant’s insight to be developing and there had been no repetition in four years and she is likely to resolve the outstanding concerns. The impact of a suspension order will be considerable and will remove the Registrant from her current role.

196. Mr Pataky submitted that a Striking Off Order would be wholly disproportionate in this case.

Decision on Sanction

197. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and reminded it that it must act proportionately and be mindful of the overarching objectives of the HCPC. It should apply the least restrictive sanction which it considers is sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest. The Panel accepted the legal advice, and it approached sanction beginning with the least restrictive first, bearing in mind the need for proportionality.

198. The Panel found the following aggravating features: -

• A failure to work in partnership with colleagues and the consequent risk to colleagues and patients

• A lack of well-developed, genuine insight, reflection and empathy

• The misconduct was a deliberate and sustained pattern of behaviour

• There was some evidence of actual harm to Colleague D

199. The Panel found the following mitigating features:-

• Some developing insight

• Some steps towards remediation

• No repetition of the misconduct for four years

• Positive current references and testimonials on clinical performance and character

• Some evidence of an environment at LAS that was not supportive

200. The Panel found, given the nature and gravity of the misconduct, that the lack of sufficient insight and demonstrable empathy towards colleagues shown by the Registrant was a particularly significant aggravating feature.

201. The Panel was mindful of the Sanctions guidance in paragraphs 51, 52, 61 and 62 as follows:-

“51. Where a registrant lacks insight, fails to express remorse and / or refuses to apologise in a timely manner, they may pose a higher risk to service users.
52. Registrants who lack a genuine recognition of the concerns raised about their fitness to practise, and fail to understand or take responsibility for the impact or potential impact of their actions, are unlikely to take the steps necessary to safeguard service user safety to address the concerns raised. For this reason, in these cases panels are likely to take more serious action in order to protect the public
61. The Standards of conduct, performance and ethics require registrants to ‘work in partnership with colleagues’ for the benefit of service users ... As a result registrants must share their skills, knowledge and experience with colleagues, and, where appropriate, relevant information about the care, treatment or other services provided to a service user.
62. Cases where a registrant has therefore refused to cooperate with colleagues, whether that be the result of bullying, discrimination or dishonesty, are likely to result in a more serious sanction.”

202. The Panel found that mediation, taking no further action and the sanction of a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. Failing to work in partnership with colleagues and bullying strikes at the heart of professional standards. The Panel was mindful of paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy. It has found a lack of sufficient, developed insight, and the misconduct was not of a relatively minor nature, and it was not isolated.

203. The Panel found that these orders would not be adequate to protect the public, nor would they satisfy the wider public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. Neither order is appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances of this case. The Registrant appears to accept that.

204. The Panel found the issue of sanction in this particular case difficult. It has found misconduct of a serious, deliberate and sustained nature. That conduct is attitudinal in nature, and the Panel found that the Registrant’s attitude continues to be reflected to an extent in her lack of well-developed insight and empathy. Despite having had several months to reflect on the findings of fact, her insight remains limited. She continues to be unwilling to fully accept and acknowledge her culpability and the impact of her actions on her former colleagues.

205. That said, the Panel has balanced that with the insight shown and remediation undertaken, together with the positive testimonials that speak well of the Registrant in the four years since these events. She is clearly a good clinician.

206. The Panel decided that a Conditions of Practice Order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Panel was able to devise realistic, workable and verifiable conditions that will provide a meaningful structure around the Registrant in order allow for her to deepen and develop her reflective practice, to reflect on the impact of her actions on colleagues, and to recognise and acknowledge her responsibility for her misconduct and its negative impact. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant would be willing to comply with such conditions.

207. The Panel therefore decided that the following conditions will protect the public by improving the Registrant’s practice through training, reflection and insight, and so minimise the risk of repetition. The Panel found that these conditions will sufficiently protect the public and the wider public interest, proportionately and will properly reflect the seriousness of the misconduct whilst acknowledging the insight and remediation already shown by the Registrant.

208. Given the conditions are designed to address attitudinal deficiencies in the Registrant’s practice, the Panel decided that conditions require to be in place for a realistic period for those deficiencies to be meaningfully addressed. The Panel decided that a period of 18 months was a proportionate and appropriate period in the circumstances.

209. The Panel considered a Suspension Order but decided that such an order would go further than was necessary. The Panel cannot impose any condition on a Suspension Order, and it considered that a Suspension order in this particular case would not meaningfully manage or facilitate any improvement of the Registrant’s practice and would serve little purpose other than it being punitive.

 

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 18 months from the date that this Order comes into effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Michelle Bignall, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must place yourself and remain under the indirect supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC, or other appropriate statutory regulator, and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within one month of the Operative Date.

2. You must work with your workplace supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan (PDP) designed to address the deficiencies in your practice around reflective practice, insight, working with colleagues and team work, in particular :-

• Your understanding of, reflection on and compliance with the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016), Standards 2.6, 2.8 and 9.1

• Your understanding of, reflection on and compliance with HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics, Standards 8.3, 10.1 and 14.5 Standards

3. Within one month of the Operative Date you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

4. You must meet with your work supervisor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

5. You must allow your work place supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

6. You must undertake and successfully complete facilitated coaching to promote enriched, holistic and effective reflection, demonstrating true introspection in line with the HCPC reflective practice guidance. You must exhibit verifiable evidence to the HCPC of successful completion of the coaching.

7. You must undertake and successfully complete an in person training programme providing strategies for the management and building of healthy interpersonal and team relations to ensure effective management of human factors in the workplace. You must exhibit verifiable evidence to the HCPC of successful completion of the programme.

8. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you cease to be employed by your current employer.

9. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up any other or further professional work (paid or unpaid).

10. You must inform the HCPC within seven days if you take up work requiring registration with a professional body outside the United Kingdom and you must inform the HCPC within seven days of returning to practice in the United Kingdom.

11. You must inform the HCPC within seven days of becoming aware of:

A. any patient safety incident you are involved in;

B. any investigation started against you; and

C. any disciplinary proceedings taken against you.

12. You must immediately inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

C. any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

D. any organisation through which you are undertaking professional training

13. You must allow the HCPC to share, as necessary, details about your performance, compliance with, and/or progress under these conditions with:

A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

C. any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

D. any organisation through which you are undertaking professional training.

 

Interim Order

Application

1. Mr Barnfield for the HCPC applied for an Interim Order. He submitted that it was necessary to protect the public and in the public interest given the Panel’s findings. He submitted that an Interim Order was logically consistent with the substantive order made by the Panel and to cover the 28 day appeal period. He asked for conditions 1 and 3 on the Interim Order to be varied to 2 months rather than one month so the Interim Order had the same effect as the main order. Mr Pataky indicated that the Registrant was neutral on the application.

Decision

2. The Panel heard from the Legal Assessor who reminded it of the tests for an interim order and to be mindful of its substantive findings. The Panel accepted the legal advice. It was mindful of the risk it had assessed and of its earlier findings. It took the view that it was appropriate to impose the conditions on an interim basis subject only to varying the period in conditions 1 and 3 to two months so that they are no more onerous than the substantive conditions.

3. The Panel decided to impose the Interim Order for a period of 18 months to cover the timescale required for any possible appeal.

The Panel makes an Interim Conditions of Practice 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 Michelle Bignall

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
12/12/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Conditions of Practice
28/05/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard