Philip J Jones

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that service of notice of today’s hearing had been effected in accordance with the rules. In took into account that the notice had been sent to the Registrant by email and by post on 31 January 2024. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been posted and emailed to the Registrant’s respective postal and email addresses on the register. The email was undeliverable at the registered email address. The Panel however noted that service was proved by evidence of sending to the registered address, rather than actual receipt, as it was incumbent on the Registrant to notify the HCPC of any change of email or postal address. In addition, the Panel received a copy of the tracking record from the Royal Mail, which confirmed that the letter containing the Notice of Hearing was signed for by “Jones” when delivered to the Registrant’s registered postal address on 1 February 2024.

Proceeding in absence

2. The Registrant did not appear nor was he represented.

3. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Khan applied for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Health Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, on the basis that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant and on that basis that the Registrant had been notified of the time and date of the hearing at his registered postal and email addresses. In addition, the Panel was to note that additional attempts had subsequently been made to contact the Registrant by both the Hearing’s Officer and Ms Khan, by letter and by telephone, but without success. Accordingly, Ms Khan submitted that all reasonable steps had been taken by the HCPC to bring this matter to the Registrant’s attention.

4. Ms Khan asked the Panel to note that the Registrant had not attended the original substantive hearing nor any of the previous review hearings and had not otherwise engaged with the HCPC. The Registrant had not asked for an adjournment and Ms Khan submitted that an adjournment would not be likely to result in the Registrant’s attendance on a later date. Accordingly, she submitted that it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed expeditiously, bearing in mind, not only that this was a mandatory review, but also that the order would lapse on 30 March 2024 if there were further delay.

5. Having considered the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and the advice of the Legal Assessor on the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, the Panel determined that there was a burden upon a registrant to update their contact details and engage with their regulator. The Panel therefore accepted that the HCPC had “taken all reasonable steps” to serve the Notice of Hearing upon the Registrant.

6. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not applied for an adjournment. Moreover, based on his past actions, the Panel considered that there was no indication that he would attend on a later date if today’s hearing were to be adjourned. Further, the Panel noted that the Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory process, nor had he attended any of the three previous hearings. The Panel therefore concluded that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to appear. The Panel also reminded itself of the overriding public interest in dealing with matters in a timely manner and that this was a mandatory review. In balancing the Registrant’s interests and the public interest, the Panel decided that the matter should be heard in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearing in Private

7. Ms Khan made an application that the whole of this review hearing should be heard in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life because the case concerned his health.

8. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. Having considered the information and findings about the Registrant’s health in the previous panels’ decisions, the Panel determined that the matters under consideration in this review were inextricably linked to the Registrant’s health. The Panel therefore determined that the hearing should be held entirely in private in order to protect his private life.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Phillip J Jones from the Register at the expiry of the current Suspension Order

No notes available

History of Hearings for Philip J Jones