Gareth Price

Preliminary Matters

Service and proceeding in absence

1. The Panel was satisfied that notice of today’s hearing had been properly served on 28 May 2024 on the Registrant at his email address registered with the HCPC.

2. The Panel considered Mr Ive’s application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He reminded the Panel it has found good service and referred to all the relevant case law. The Registrant had e-mailed the HCPC on 28 May 2024 to advise he was not attending and would not be represented stating he: “will not be attending or be participating in the hearing remotely come June 26th and or any subsequent days.” Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and that it was in the public interest to proceed.

3. The Panel is aware that its discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the care. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which makes clear that the first question the Panel should ask is whether all reasonable efforts have been taken to serve the Registrant with notice. Thereafter, if the Panel is satisfied about notice, the discretion whether to proceed must be exercised having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Registrant being a prime consideration, but with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public also taken into account.

4. The Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as it is satisfied that it is fair and appropriate to do so. In reaching this decision, the Panel has noted there has been no request for an adjournment and it also noted the email from the Registrant where he clearly states that he will not be attending. It balanced fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the public interest and it concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself. In these circumstances the Panel is satisfied that it is fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Conducting the hearing in private

5. The Panel was mindful that issues about the Registrant’s health and personal life may arise. Mr Ive applied for the hearing to be held in private given the health and private matters arising. He submitted that it would be possible to hear only the relevant parts of the hearing in private and that the hearing should otherwise be held in public, given the open justice principle. As such, this is a redacted version of the Panel’s full decision.

6. The Panel accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor referring to the HCPC Practice Note on conducting hearings in private and to the open justice principle. Having considered the interests of justice and fairness, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate to conduct any part of the hearing in private in respect of any health matters that arise in order to protect the Registrant’s privacy. The remainder of the hearing will be conducted in public.

Amendment of the Allegation

7. Mr Ive applied to amend the allegation. He submitted that The Registrant has been given notice of the proposed amendments to the allegations. A Notice of Allegation reflecting the amended allegation (removing a reference to health) was served on the Registrant on 26 January 2024, following a preliminary hearing. The Registrant has not responded and he has not objected to the proposed amendments.

8. Mr Ive submitted that the amendments sought to more clearly reflect the evidence and make clearer the allegation of dishonesty. He submitted that none of the proposed amendments prejudice, or cause any unfairness to, the Registrant, and were minor in nature.

9. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel must be mindful of fairness and the interests of justice. It should consider whether the proposed amendments alter the nature or gravity of the allegation. The Panel decided that the amendments clarified but did not alter the nature or the gravity of the allegation and were relatively minor. The further particularisation of the dishonesty allegation was fair. The Registrant is aware of the proposed amendments and he has not objected. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that there was no unfairness or prejudice to the Registrant in the proposed amendments which do not alter the nature or the gravity of the allegation as a whole and make matters clearer. The Panel therefore granted the application to amend.

Background

10. The Registrant is a registered paramedic. At the material time, he was employed by the Welsh Ambulance Service (‘the Trust’). The HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant on 5 August 2020, advising that he was under investigation by the Trust for failing to inform them that he had been disqualified from driving for 6 months from March to September 2019. During that period, the Registrant was on sick leave.

11. The HCPC contacted the Trust regarding the self-referral. The Trust informed the HCPC that they were still investigating the matter. The Trust’s investigation and disciplinary process did not complete until late 2021. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Trust provided the HCPC with the investigation documentation.

12. The Trust's investigation report revealed that the Registrant was convicted of a speeding offence on 4 February 2019. Due to “totting up” of penalty points he was disqualified from driving. It is alleged that contrary to his contractual duties as a paramedic, he did not inform the Trust of his six-month driving disqualification. The investigation report records that the Registrant “booked unfit” on 18 February 2019 and cited health issues as the reasons for taking leave.

13. The HCPC allege that the Registrant did not disclose his driving disqualification to the Trust at the time, disclosing it in June 2020 having been disqualified on 4 February 2019. The HCPC allege that was dishonest.

14. The Registrant returned to work in October 2019, some weeks after his driving disqualification ended, and resumed full duties on 8 January 2020. Thereafter, the Registrant was requested to present his driving licence for routine inspection in June 2020. It is alleged that he failed to provide a full copy of it. He was asked to present his licence at a meeting on 25 June 2020 and it was only at this meeting that the Registrant disclosed his driving disqualification to his line manager.

15. Following an investigation into the matter, the Trust concluded that there was evidence that the Registrant had failed to disclose his disqualification, but that there was no evidence that he had driven whilst disqualified.

16. During communication between the HCPC and the Trust, it was learned that the Registrant was under investigation by the Trust for a further issue. On 29 March 2020, the Registrant had allegedly attended Port Talbot Ambulance Station (‘the Ambulance Station’) at a time when he had been self-isolating after presenting with Covid-19 symptoms. He allegedly attended the Ambulance Station primarily to use toilet facilities, but remained on site to wash his car and interacted with colleagues who were on site. A final written warning, which remained on his file for two years, was issued on 27 April 2021. This was the subject of a separate investigation by the Trust.

17. The Registrant has not denied the allegations in his written correspondence with the HCPC. A Memorandum of Conviction is provided in respect of the driving disqualification on 4 February 2019.

18. The HCPC have two witnesses:

AW - Trust Investigating Officer
LC - Trust Investigating Officer

Summary of Evidence

Witness 1 - AW

19. AW is a registered paramedic with the Trust. She was commissioned to investigate the issue of the Registrant’s driving disqualification in February 2019. She referred to and adopted her written witness statement.

20. AW told the Panel about her investigative process. She obtained a copy of the conviction dated 9 February 2019 suspending the Registrant from driving for six months. She said he was aware of the “Driving at Work Policy” as he was the Trade Union partner. She said he would have been aware that he should have informed his line manager at an earlier stage of his disqualification and his points. The period of disqualification ended on 4 September 2019. AW said that the Registrant informed the Trust about this driving disqualification on 25 June 2020.

21. AW told the Panel about the Registrant’s sickness absence from 18 February 2019 until 20 October 2019.

22. In June 2020 the Registrant’s driving licence was requested for a routine inspection and he was then asked to attend a meeting with his line manager on 25 June 2020. It was at that meeting that the Registrant disclosed his disqualification. AW said that she then interviewed the Registrant on 13 July 2020 and that he admitted failing to disclose his full licence. She recorded in the interview notes that he said: “I knew the shit now was gonna hit that fan, so I just tried to avoid it cos I just can’t… I know dam well I was supposed to be reporting such things but it was not something that I was in a place to handle with at all…”

23. AW said that the Registrant was cooperative and had been “distraught” during his interview with her and that he was troubled by a number of personal issues. She said that he appeared to feel that the loss of his driving licence had been “the straw that broke the camel’s back” and he could not bear the humiliation. She said that the Registrant had made no attempt to deny the matter and had said that he knew he should have disclosed the disqualification to his line manager, as he had been the lead for the Union on the Trust’s driving at work policy. AW said the Registrant had been very remorseful and knew he should have reported it. She said that his mitigation was very much his health.

24. [Redacted].

25. AW said that the Registrant ought to have referred himself before reaching the point of disqualification. His line manager told AW that he remembered that the Registrant had mentioned to him he had points on his driving licence, but his line manager could not recall the detail. There was no record of the Registrant referring himself at any earlier stage regarding his driving penalty points. AW said that normally you ought to tell your manager at the six penalty point level. She said that the Registrant certainly should have reported himself when he got the driving ban. She said that there was nothing to suggest he drove whilst disqualified.

Witness 2 - LC

26. LC is a registered paramedic. He referred to and adopted his written witness statement. He told the Panel that he was appointed to investigate the incident involving the Registrant visiting the ambulance station during the Covid pandemic on 29 March 2020.

27. LC told the Panel that he had interviewed a number of witnesses including the Registrant. The Registrant advised that he first started displaying symptoms of Covid at 12:00 on 25 March 2020 and confirmed that he was aware that as of 13 March 2020, the public were to remain at home and self-isolate for seven days if they had a new or continuous cough, but that he needed to attend to take a test.

28. The Registrant further confirmed to LC that he attended Port Talbot station to use the toilet, and that he had bird excrement on his car, so he needed to clean his car. When LC asked him if the travel was essential, the Registrant said that travelling to get tested was essential, as was attending the station to use the toilet as he had a health condition. He had accepted that cleaning his car was not essential. LC told the Panel that he interviewed other colleagues from the station and two had reported to him that the Registrant had spoken to them that day, albeit briefly.

Closing Submissions on the facts

29. Mr Ive addressed the Panel about hearsay. He submitted that AW and LC told the Panel about what others had told them. He referred to the relevant case law and factors to consider from Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin). He submitted that none of the evidence is contested by the Registrant and he reminded the Panel to consider the contemporaneous interview notes taken by AW and LC.

30. Mr Ive summarised the case and submitted that the burden of proof had been met. He asked the Panel to disregard the outcome of the investigations by the Panel as it was for the Panel to makes its own findings based on the facts it had heard. He submitted that the evidence from AW and LC proved all the allegations and are supported by the exhibits. This evidence is not contested by the Registrant.

31. Mr Ive referred to the guidance on dishonesty in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67. He submitted that in the interviews with AW it was clear that the Registrant knew he had points on his driving licence and that he concealed the conviction knowing he should be disclosing his disqualification.

32. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel on the factors in Thorneycroft when considering hearsay evidence. He reminded the Panel that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the Registrant need prove nothing. He advised the Panel to put from its mind the outcome of the Trust investigations as it must make its own decision based on the evidence it has heard and have no regard to the outcome of those investigations, which are irrelevant. He advised the Panel on the issue of dishonesty and the guidance in the Ivey case and he provided a good character direction for the Registrant.

Decision on Facts

33. The Panel first considered the hearsay evidence. The two witnesses who spoke to the Panel reported what they were told in the investigations they conducted. There are consistent, contemporaneous interview notes of the interviews they conducted. The relevant hearsay evidence is the evidence reported to LC by two colleagues whom it is alleged the Registrant spoke to; and the investigatory interview with AW reporting what the Registrant said.

34. That evidence is not challenged to any extent by the Registrant who has had prior and fair notice of all the evidence. The Panel considered that this hearsay evidence was demonstrably reliable being reported by fellow paramedics appointed to investigate the matter. In the Registrant’s own interview notes with LC and AW, agreed by the Registrant, he accepts that he had the driving disqualification, that he did not disclose it, that he knew he should have and that he attended the station and spoke to colleagues on 29 March 2020.

35. The Panel concluded that this evidence reported by LC and AW was relevant and that it was fair to admit it in all the circumstances. It will attach such weight as it considers appropriate in due course.

Particular 1 - Proved

36. There is signed Memorandum of Conviction before the Panel. That is conclusive evidence proving this particular. It details the date of the court appearance by the Registrant at West Glamorgan Magistrates’ Court on 5 March 2019. It records that the Registrant was present but unrepresented and that he was convicted, fined and disqualified from holding or obtained a driving licence for six months. Further, it was admitted by the Registrant in his interview with AW who also checked the court records confirming the conviction, The Panel noted that the Registrant had pleaded guilty.

Particular 2 – Proved

37. AW was clear and credible and said that, with some explanations about his well-being and personal circumstances at the time, the Registrant had admitted that he had not disclosed the driving disqualification until 25 June 2020, knowing that he should have done so. She was open, professional and straightforward and appears to have conducted her interview in a thorough manner. The Registrant does not challenge the interview notes or the evidence of AW to any extent.

38. AW was balanced and fair in her evidence and said that the Registrant had been “distraught” and very remorseful. She said that it was a “tragedy” for him as he had a long career in the service. Her evidence was consistent with her contemporaneous interview notes, which the Panel noted were sent to the Registrant and agreed by him as being “in order” in his email to AW of 29 July 2020.

Particular 3 a) & b) - Proved

39. The Registrant admitted this incident in his interview with LC, providing an explanation for his actions. LC was fair and open in his evidence, and the Panel found his evidence credible and consistent with the contemporaneous interview notes. LC had also interviewed several colleagues who confirmed that they had seen the Registrant washing his car at the station that day. Two colleagues also told LC that they spoke, briefly, to the Registrant, and this is not contradicted by the Registrant in this interview with LC. The Registrant does not challenge the interview notes or the evidence of LC to any extent.

Particular 4 – Proved

40. AW was a clear and credible witness. She reported to the Panel what the Registrant admitted to her in the investigatory interview that he had not disclosed the disqualification and that he was well aware, not least as a Union representative, of his obligation to disclose driving penalty points and driving disqualification to his employers. The Panel found that he had ample opportunity to do so, but concealed it. The photograph of his licence that he was asked for and provided to his line manager was not complete, not showing the disqualification.

41. AW’s evidence was consistent with her contemporaneous interview notes, agreed by the Registrant, which record that he said: “I know damn well I was supposed to be reporting such things but it was not something that I was in a place to handle with at all…”

42. The Panel was mindful of the Ivey test and it found that the Registrant knew at the time that he was being dishonest, and that objectively what he did by concealing this matter for the period he did was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, decent people.

HCPC Submissions on Misconduct and Impairment

43. Mr Ive for the HCPC referred the Panel to the relevant case law on misconduct including Roylance v GMC (no 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 and Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin). He submitted that the findings of fact are serious and amount to misconduct, the Registrant having acted in such a way that fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect of a registered paramedic.

44. Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant had breached Standards 3.4, 6.1, 6.2, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016), and Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 15.1 of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency: Paramedics (2014). The finding of dishonesty breached standards 9.2 and 9.5. Mr Ive further submitted that the Registrant breached the HM Government Covid guidance applicable at the time of Particular 3 and the Welsh Ambulance Service Code of Conduct.

45. Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired and he referred the Panel to the guidance in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and other relevant case law. He submitted that the Registrant was liable to repeat his misconduct, particularly the dishonesty which was difficult to remedy. [Redacted]. Mr Ive stressed the importance of the public interest and submitted that not to find impairment would undermine public confidence in the profession.

Decision on Misconduct

46. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the definition of misconduct in Roylance v GMC (No. 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 and importance of considering seriousness as expressed in the case of Nandi. On the issue of impairment, he reminded the Panel of the authoritative guidance in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581, and in the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment. He reminded the Panel of the central importance of considering the Registrant’s insight, remediation, and the risk of repetition, as well as the wider public interest issues, including maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding proper professional standards. These matters are for the Panel’s professional judgement and there was no onus or burden of proof.

47. The Panel accepted the legal advice and first considered the issue of misconduct. The Registrant took some 18 months to make the disclosure about his driving disqualification. That was dishonest and was a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely trust and integrity. The conduct was sustained as the Registrant had plenty of opportunity to make the required disclosure. He knew that he should do so. The misconduct was directly related to his role as a paramedic as he could not have fulfilled the role without a driving licence. The Panel decided that the finding of dishonesty, of itself, fell far short of what would have been proper in the circumstances, and it was serious. The Panel concluded that particulars 1 and 2 amounted to misconduct.

48. The findings on particular 3 took place at a time when the Covid restrictions were strict. In breaching those restrictions by attending the station and speaking to colleagues, the Registrant placed colleagues, and so potentially service users, at risk of infection of a serious, and for some, a life-threatening virus. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct was reckless, particularly given his role as a first line health care professional at a time of a worldwide pandemic. The Panel decided that this conduct was serious and found that it amounted to misconduct.

49. The Panel agreed with the submissions for the HCPC regarding the relevant Codes of Conduct and found that the Registrant breached Standards 3.4, 6.1, 6.2, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016), and Standards 2.1, 2.2 and 15.1 of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency: Paramedics (2014).

Decision on Impairment

50. The Panel next considered impairment of fitness to practise and was mindful of the guidance and the case law. The Panel recognised that dishonesty is difficult to remedy, but was of the view that the misconduct was remediable.

51. The Panel considered the central issues of insight and remediation by the Registrant. He has acknowledged in his email of 14 June 2024 that: “I am extremely sorry for my historic actions and would never wish to repeat them by being far more conscious of my actions in any given forthcoming situation…. I did endanger work colleagues with infection and therefore, indirectly their potential patients. For that I am will forever be truly sorry.”

52. The Registrant has apologised and he demonstrated some remorse to AW. He has, to a significant extent, admitted the allegations. However, beyond this the Registrant has not engaged with this hearing. He has not provided, as he could have, a reflective statement demonstrating his developing insight. He has not provided the Panel with evidence of any steps he has taken to remedy his practice. The Panel has no information before it indicating that the Registrant has developed insight into his conduct or that he has remediated his practice to any extent.

53. [Redacted].

54. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant has in the past and is likely in the future to repeat his misconduct. With the approach in Grant in mind, the Panel concluded that the Registrant has in the past and is likely in the future to place colleagues and service users at real risk of harm; to breach fundamental tenets of the profession; to be dishonest; and to bring the profession into disrepute. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal element.

55. On the public interest element, the Panel was mindful of the guidance in Cohen which states that a Panel: “…must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence [in the] profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour of the public in their doctors and that public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence…”

56. With that in mind, the Panel decided, given the nature and gravity of the misconduct, that public confidence in the profession would be undermined were it not to find the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired. Not to do so would also fail to declare and uphold proper professional standards and would undermine the reputation of the regulator.

57. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public elements of impairment.

HCPC Submissions on Sanction

58. Mr Ive reminded the Panel of the purpose of sanction. He referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and that the appropriate sanction was a matter for the Panel. He reminded the Panel of the key issue of proportionality.

59. Mr Ive submitted that the aggravating factors may be:

• Breach of trust with respect to his colleagues;
• There was a repetition of conduct, as there were two investigations by the Trust;
• The Registrant failed to promote and protect the interests of service users;
• The dishonesty was perpetuated over 18 months;
• A lack of insight, and apology and remorse only after disclosure;
• A complete lack of remediation;
• Dishonesty.

60. Mr Ive submitted that Mitigating factors may be:

• The Registrant’s expression of remorse;
• Some, limited insight but no remediation;
• Registrant acknowledged his wrongdoings in his letter of 11 June 2024;
• An apology has been offered;
• No engagement with the hearing [redacted] and no reflective piece;
• No evidence of remediation or developing insight.

61. Mr Ive referred the Panel to paragraph 40 for the Sanctions Policy regarding insight and remediation. He also referred the Panel to paragraph 131 regarding a Striking-Off Order.

Decision on Sanction

62. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanction Policy and reminded it to act proportionately. He advised the Panel to consider the sanctions in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the wider public interest. It should also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors and bear in mind the public interest and that the primary purpose of sanction was protection of the public.

63. The Panel was mindful of the need to act proportionately and consider sanction starting at the lowest level. It considered the HCPC Sanction Policy, particularly paragraphs 40; 45-47; 51-53 and 56 - 58 dealing with breach of trust and dishonesty, and lack of insight and remediation.

64. The Panel found the following mitigating factors:

• The Registrant apologised and has shown some remorse;
• He has a long career with no previous fitness to practise history;
• No evidence of actual harm to patients and colleagues;
• Some, albeit limited insight;
• [Redacted].

65. The Panel found the following aggravating factors:

• The dishonesty was deliberate and sustained over 18 months;
• Lack of engagement;
• No evidence of remediation;
• His conduct in attending the station was reckless;
• Lack of insight and candour.

66. Given the nature and gravity of the findings, the Panel concluded that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the findings. The Panel has found dishonesty, and that there is a risk of repetition and a lack of insight. Accordingly, to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not be proportionate and would fail to sufficiently mark the seriousness of the findings. The Panel considered paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy on Caution Orders. It found that none of the factors listed in the guidance applied in this case and the misconduct found is not of a minor nature.

67. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. The Panel decided that a Conditions of Practice Order would not engage with the nature or the gravity of findings in this particular case, particularly as there is no issue about the Registrant’s professional competency. There is a finding of a real risk of repetition of the dishonesty and the Panel decided that conditions of practice could not appropriately or sufficiently manage or deal with the deliberate dishonesty found. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that conditions of practice would not be appropriate, sufficient or proportionate and would fail to reflect the nature and seriousness of the case. Further, such an order would fail to properly address the public interest and would fail to maintain confidence in the profession.

68. The Panel next considered a suspension order. It considered the guidance in paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy:

A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the Registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

69. The Panel found that these factors are relevant in this case. There has been a serious breach of the standards of conduct by the Registrant, but the Registrant has shown a lack of insight and the Panel has found that he is likely to repeat the misconduct. There is no evidence of any remediation. The Panel has no evidence to suggest that he is willing or able to resolve or remedy his failings, indeed his lack of engagement in this process indicates otherwise.

70. The Panel was mindful of the Sanctions guidance on Striking-Off at paragraphs 130 – 131. This is a serious finding, that of dishonesty, and it is coupled with a lack of insight and no evidence of remediation of his practice. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Striking-Off Order was the proportionate sanction. That will serve to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession. It will also serve to declare and uphold proper professional standards.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike from the Register the name of Gareth Price.

Interim Order

1. In light of its findings on Sanction, the Panel next considered an application by Mr Ive for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period before the Striking-Off Order becomes operative.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders. He reminded the Panel of its findings and that an Interim Order must be necessary to protect the public, or be otherwise in the public interest. The Panel must act proportionately and balance the interests of the Registrant with the need to protect the public.

3. The Panel was mindful of its earlier findings and concluded that an Interim Order is necessary to protect the public during the appeal period. The Panel decided that that it would be wholly incompatible with its earlier findings and with the Striking-Off Order imposed to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order is not meantime necessary for the protection of the public, or otherwise in the public interest.

4. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on both public protection and public interest grounds. It decided that it is appropriate that Interim Order be imposed for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. When the appeal period expires this Interim Order will come to an end unless there has been an application to appeal. If there is no appeal the Striking-Off Order shall apply when the appeal period expires.

History of Hearings for Gareth Price