Mr Philip Michael Hill

Preliminary Matters

Service of Notice

1. The notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant at his registered email address as it appeared in the register on 29 May 2024. The notice contained the date, time and venue of today’s hearing. A delivery confirmation has also been provided to the Panel.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and is satisfied that notice of today’s hearing has been served in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (the “Rules”) including the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3. The Panel then went on to consider whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, it considered the submissions of Ms Chowdhury on behalf of the HCPC.

4. Ms Chowdhury submitted that the HCPC has taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant. She further submitted that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. In support of that, she referred to a telephone attendance note dated 3 May 2024 of a call from the Registrant to Blake Morgan, the HCPC’s solicitors. That note stated:

“Received a phone call from Mr Hill on 3 May 2024 in which he confirmed he did want to attend the final hearing scheduled to take place on 22 May 2024.

Mr Hill confirmed he wishes to be taken off the register. It was explained that the hearing would go ahead as scheduled for public interest reasons. Mr Hill confirmed that was fine and that he still didn’t want to attend”.

5. She also referred to an email from the Registrant dated 3 May 2024 in which he wrote: “I do not wish to attend the meeting on 22/05/24, as previously stated, I wish to be taken off the register".

6. She reminded the Panel that the Registrant had not sought an adjournment and that there was a public interest in this matter being dealt with expeditiously.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised that, if the Panel is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to notify the Registrant of the hearing, then the Panel had the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He advised the Panel that the discretion was to be exercised with the utmost care and caution as set out in the case of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5.

8. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and advised that the Adeogba case reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and of the public interest. In that regard, the case of Adeogba was clear that: “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, ... , it is only right that it should proceed….there is a burden on...all professionals subject to a regulatory regime, to engage with the regulator, both in relation to the investigation and ultimate resolution of allegations made against them. That is part of the responsibility to which they sign up when being admitted to the profession".

9. It was clear, from the principles derived from case law, that the Panel was required to ensure that fairness and justice were maintained when deciding whether or not to proceed in a Registrant’s absence.

10. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the HCPC to notify the Registrant of the hearing. It was also satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had voluntarily absented himself.

11. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel took into consideration the HCPC’s practice note entitled ‘Proceeding in the Absence of a Registrant’. The Panel weighed its responsibility for public protection and the expeditious disposal of the case with the Registrant’s right to a fair hearing.

12. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the following:

• the Registrant in his email of 3 May 2024 unequivocally indicated that he will not be attending the hearing;

• he has not made an application to adjourn today’s hearing; and

• there is a public interest that this matter proceeds expeditiously.

13. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. Having weighed the public interest for expedition in cases against the Registrant’s own interests, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

14. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner with the HCPC. The Registrant was employed by Swansea Bay University Health Board (‘SBUHB’) between June 1996 and June 2023. The Registrant worked at the Morriston Hospital site (‘the Hospital’).

15. In June 2023, SBUHB made a referral to the HCPC. The referral detailed the following:

• On 26 January 2023 the Registrant was detained in the Hospital car park by a paedophile hunter group;

• The Registrant was arrested by South Wales Police;

• On 28 January 2023 the Registrant pleaded guilty to the charges at Swansea Magistrates Court and was remanded into custody; and

• On 1 June 2023 the Registrant received a custodial sentence of 2 years and 3 months at Swansea Crown Court.

16. The Registrant was subsequently convicted of further offences on 1 March 2023 and 24 May 2023. The sentence imposed on 1 June 2023 related to all offences and was ordered to run concurrently.

17. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order was imposed for a period of 10 years.

18. At the time of sentencing, the Judge stated:

“…you went online to speak to what you firmly believed was a 13 year old girl called Sophie… in the belief, I repeat, that you were talking to a 13 year old girl and in the course of a number of conversations you tried to get her to masturbate herself and to send you indecent photographs of her private parts and indeed engage in such acts. You yourself repeatedly sent her images of your penis to, I reiterate, a 13 year old girl as you thought her to be. You also sent her photographs or images of you masturbating yourself to ejaculation.

Some of the behaviour that I have just referred to referenced your occupation as a surgical anaesthetic theatre assistant at Morriston Hospital. There are photographs showing, indecent photographs, showing you in your scrubs at work…I am told candidly by you that your work as an anaesthetic theatre assistant involved children. No suggestion, it is right to say, that anything untoward happened but with your knowledge of your proclivities of your interests, that is a concerning feature.

Following your arrest, although not of course whilst you were on bail, you were found by the police to have 288 images. Those images depicted, among other things, sex between animals, dogs and horses, and human beings and they involved penetration. There is also a suggestion that you were searching terms such as incest, downs syndrome, and dead. The only conclusion, I am afraid, that I can reach Mr Hill is that you are a man who at least for the last ten years has been sexually extremely deviant, at least in your interests if not in your acts. There are aggravating factors as far as this series of offences involving communications with what you thought were a child. Firstly, the disparity of age. You are [redacted] years of age…..and the girl, I repeat, you thought was 13. There is also the aggravating factor that you asked her, solicited from her, sexual images of her body”.

Decision on Facts

19. The Panel has been shown the certificates of conviction from the Swansea Crown Court in relation to the Registrant. They set out the offences for which the Registrant was convicted and the sentence imposed on him.

20. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It took into account Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules which states that “where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction….shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it is based”.

21. Accordingly, the Panel finds the facts of the convictions and the sentence imposed proved.

22. The Panel therefore finds the facts of Particulars, 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 4 proved.

Decision on Statutory Ground

23. The Panel next considered the statutory ground. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

24. Because this is a conviction case and the Panel has been provided with the memoranda of conviction, and has found the fact of the convictions proved, the Panel found the statutory ground to be made out.

Decision on Impairment

25. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the convictions.

HCPC Submissions

26. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS’s Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and, in particular, to the personal and public components set out within the note.

27. Ms Chowdhury submitted that the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public components.

Personal component

28. She submitted that the sentencing remarks state that the Registrant had been communicating online with a person he believed to be a 13 year old girl called ‘Sophie’. Unbeknown to the Registrant, ‘Sophie’ was in fact a decoy. However, the judge emphasised that the Registrant’s communication with ‘Sophie’ was in the belief that she was a real 13 year old girl. During their conversation the Registrant tried to get ‘Sophie’ to masturbate herself and to send him indecent photographs of her private parts. The Registrant repeatedly sent ‘Sophie’ images of his penis and photographs of him masturbating himself to ejaculation.

29. Some of the indecent photographs sent to ‘Sophie’ by the Registrant showed him in his scrubs at work and some of the messages were sent from the Registrant’s place of work. The judge described it as a “concerning feature” that the Registrant’s employment as an Operating Department Practitioner involved working with children.

30. Following his arrest, the Registrant was found to have 288 images of sexual acts being carried out, some of which involved animals. These photographs were of some age. The Judge indicated that the Registrant had also been searching terms online such as “incest”, “downs syndrome” and “dead”.

31. At court, the Registrant entered guilty pleas to all offences.

32. The Registrant has corresponded with Blake Morgan by letter, email and telephone. However, this correspondence only set out that he would not attend a HCPC hearing and that he wished to be removed from the HCPC Register. At no stage has the Registrant addressed his behaviour or expressed any remorse for his actions. He has not demonstrated any insight into the events, and the HCPC is concerned that there is therefore a risk of repetition.

33. The criminal convictions are of a very serious nature. Ms Chowdhury drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the sentencing Judge stated “these matters are far too serious taken as a whole to justify anything [other] than an immediate sentence". Indeed, the judge was sufficiently concerned about the Registrant’s behaviour to impose a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a period of 10 years. The Registrant will also have to sign the Sex Offender’s Register for 10 years. She submitted that public confidence in the profession requires a finding of impairment to be made.

34. For these reasons, she submitted that the Registrant is impaired on the personal component.

Public component

35. Ms Chowdhury submitted that the HCPC aims to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the professions it regulates. The Registrant has not provided any evidence that he has successfully remediated. The Panel, she submitted therefore cannot be assured that his behaviour will not be repeated in the future, and the Registrant poses a real risk to members of the public.

36. In the leading authority of Fleischmann (CRHCP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin)), Newman J held that “where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence or offences, he should not be permitted to resume his practice unrestricted.” Newman J went on to explain that “the rationale for the principle is that good standing in a profession must be earned if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained".

37. Applying this principle to the present case, a panel would have little choice but to conclude that the Registrant is impaired on the public component by virtue of his convictions.

38. In addition, Ms Chowdhury submitted that a reasonable member of the public who was informed of the details of the case would be shocked and troubled to learn that the Registrant was able to work unrestricted: NH v General Medical Council 2016 EWCA 2348 (Admin).

39. In his correspondence the Registrant has not addressed the impact of his convictions on his profession or the public confidence in that profession. The Registrant has also failed to acknowledge the serious consequences his actions could have had if ‘Sophie’ had been a real child. She therefore submitted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment.

40. For these reasons, she submitted that the Registrant is also impaired on the public component.

41. No submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant have been received.

Panel’s consideration and decision on impairment

42. In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to all the evidence before it. It took account of the submissions of Ms Chowdhury on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

43. The Panel is mindful that its role was not to go behind the conviction nor was it to seek to retry the criminal case. Rather, its task was to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the criminal offence concerned. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions had brought the Operating Department Practitioner profession into disrepute or had undermined public confidence in that profession.

44. The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel that it should bear in mind the principle of public protection in its broadest sense. The Panel was advised that it could take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the criminal convictions. A guilty plea entered at the first reasonable opportunity is potentially indicative of greater insight on the part of the Registrant than one entered at the last moment.

45. The Panel has had regard to the sentence imposed, but has also borne in mind that the sentence imposed is not necessarily a good indicator of the seriousness of the offence when considered in a regulatory context in terms of maintaining public confidence in the profession: R (Low) v General Osteopathic Council [2007] EWGC 2839 (Admin). This is because the prime consideration of regulatory tribunals is the protection of the public and of the wider public interest. As Dame Janet Smith noted in the Fifth Shipman Inquiry Report:

“The fact that the court has imposed a very low penalty or even none at all should not lead the [regulator] to the conclusion that the case is not serious in the context of [its own] proceedings The role of the [regulator] in protecting [service users] involves different considerations from those taken into account by the criminal courts when passing sentence. What may well appear relatively trivial in the context of general criminal law may be quite serious in the context of [professional] practice.”

46. In considering whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction, the Panel adopted the approach formulated by Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth report of the Shipman inquiry by asking itself the following questions:

Does the Registrant’s conviction, and the facts relating to the conviction show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he:

a) has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b) has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or

c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession and/or

d) …..

47. Given the nature and extent of the Registrant’s offending relating as it did to serious offences of child pornography and child sexual exploitation, the Panel finds that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are all relevant in this case. The Panel concluded that the Registrant posed an ongoing risk of harm to members of the public given that, as identified by the sentencing Judge, the Registrant’s work as an “anaesthetic theatre assistant involved children”. The Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely that it is incumbent on members of the profession to behave lawfully. By failing to do so, his behaviour brings the profession into disrepute.

48. The Panel first considered the personal component of impairment and considered the issues of insight and remediation. It noted that since the Registrant’s conviction, there was no meaningful evidence of demonstrable insight or steps towards remediation. In any event, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s behaviour, relating as it did to a sexual interest in children, is difficult to remediate, and there is no evidence that he has done so.

49. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions on the personal component of impairment.

50. The Panel then considered the public component of impairment.

51. The Panel has borne in mind the overarching objective of fitness to practise proceedings in that it should consider, not only the need to protect the public, but the need to uphold the reputation of the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. In doing so, the Panel has borne in mind the comments of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) where Mrs Justice Cox noted:

“In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances”.

52. The Panel was mindful of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) which states:

• 9 - Be honest and trustworthy.

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

53. Given the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by the Registrant, and those features identified by the sentencing Judge, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct fell far below this standard expected of him. The Panel considered that a right-minded member of the public, hearing all of the circumstances and evidence of the case, would consider that this case necessitates a finding of current impairment if public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process is to be maintained.

54. The Panel determined that the serious nature of the conviction was such that the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the professions would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. Therefore, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired by reason of his convictions on the public component of impairment.

Decision on Sanction

Submissions

55. Ms Chowdhury did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction. However, she drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (“Sanctions Policy”) which contains particular sections on sexual misconduct and criminal convictions.

56. Paragraph 76 of the Sanctions Policy describes cases concerning sexual misconduct as ‘a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession’.

57. Paragraph 77 states ‘where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction'.

58. Paragraphs 78 and 79 of the Sanctions Policy deal with the sexual abuse of children. Paragraph 79 states that the ‘sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice'.

59. Paragraph 85 of the Sanctions Policy refers to registrants on the sex offender’s register, saying ‘a panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database'.

60. Paragraph 88 of the Sanctions Policy refers to offences related to indecent images of children, saying ‘any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction'.

61. In addition, when considering which sanction to impose in this case, she invited the Panel to consider the following aggravating factors:

• The lack of insight, remorse or apology;

• The Registrant has provided a very brief undated letter expressing his desire to be removed from the HCPC register. He has not provided any evidence of reflection, remediation or insight for his actions. He has not apologised for his actions and does not address the impact of his conviction on his profession or on public confidence in that profession.

62. Ms Chowdhury identified, in relation to mitigating factors that the Registrant has no previous convictions.

63. In conclusion, she therefore submitted that the Panel ought to impose a just and proportionate sanction in accordance with the Sanctions Policy.

Registrant’s submissions

64. No submissions have been received by or on behalf of the Registrant, save for the fact that he has stated that he wished to be removed from the register.

Panel’s consideration and decision

65. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised the Panel that the full range of sanctions is available to it as this was a case involving a criminal conviction, and he reminded the Panel that it was not to go behind the conviction. He advised the Panel that it should bear in mind its duty to protect members of the public and also the public interest which includes maintaining and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, maintaining the reputation of the profession, and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

66. He advised that, whilst the Panel was entitled to take into consideration the sentence that the Criminal Court imposed upon the Registrant, the sentence imposed is not necessarily a good indicator of the seriousness of the matter in the context of regulatory proceedings. That was because the prime considerations that apply in regulatory proceedings were:

a) Protection of the Public;

b) Reputational harm to the profession;

c) Public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process; and

d) Relevant professional standards of behaviour and the seriousness of any departure from those standards.

67. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the case of CHRE v GDC and Fleischmann (2005) EWHC 87 and the general principle that where a practitioner had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, he should not be permitted to resume [his] practice until [he] has satisfactorily completed his sentence. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that as such, it should take into consideration the facts of the offence in question and determine whether or not it was a serious criminal offence. He advised that the seriousness of a criminal offence is not necessarily determined by the type of sentence imposed, but can also be determined by the circumstances of the offending behaviour. These are factors that can affect the reputation of the profession.

68. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it was entitled to take into consideration factors that it considered to be aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the criminal offence when deciding what sanction would be sufficient in the public interest.

69. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that any sanction it imposes must be the least restrictive sanction that is sufficient to protect the public and the public interest. It should take into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. He reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction is not punitive, although it may have that effect. He advised the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

70. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had due regard to the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has considered any aggravating and mitigating factors and has borne in mind the principle of proportionality.

71. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

a) the Registrant had been convicted of numerous serious criminal offences in relation to child pornography and child sexual exploitation as reflected in the Judge’s sentencing remarks;

b) the offences were deliberate and premeditated;

c) the Registrant has not demonstrated any meaningful insight into his behaviour since his convictions (noting his guilty pleas at the Magistrates Court) and there is no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has remediated his behaviour; and

d) the Registrant has not demonstrated any remorse.

72. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

(a) The Registrant entered early guilty pleas at the Magistrates Court; and

(b) He had a previously good regulatory history.

73. The Panel reminded itself that if a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and is still serving their sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the Panel should not permit the registrant to resume their practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed CHRE v GDC and Fleischmann (2005) EWHC 87. The Panel noted that the Registrant is still subject to a prison sentence and remains subject to a sexual harm prevention order and remains subject to registration on the sex offenders’ register. The Panel could not therefore see any good reason to depart from the above-mentioned principle.

74. The Panel first considered taking no action but concluded that, given the seriousness of the criminal offences committed, this would be wholly inappropriate and inadequate given the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances.

75. The Panel considered mediation but considered that this was not an appropriate outcome given the facts of this case in that it would not be relevant to addressing the public interest concerns identified.

76. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99 - 102 of the Sanctions Policy as to when such an order might be appropriate. The Panel determined that the circumstances of the criminal offences are such that a Caution Order is also not appropriate to meet the public interest concerns identified for the same reason as set out above.

77. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order and had regard to paragraphs 105 - 117 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has had regard to the fact that there are no concerns with the Registrant’s practice or competency as a Operating Department Practitioner. However, the nature and seriousness of the criminal offences makes a Conditions of Practice Order inappropriate as a sanction. A Conditions of Practice Order, which focusses on the need to remedy practice deficiencies, would not be appropriate or relevant to the facts of this case. In any event, such a sanction would be wholly unworkable and impracticable given the Registrant’s lack of engagement save for his stated wish to be removed from the register.

78. The Panel then considered whether a period of suspension would be a sufficient and proportionate response. It had regard to paragraphs 118-120 of the Sanctions Policy.

79. The Panel bore in mind the findings it had already made, namely that the Registrant has been convicted of serious criminal offences and has identified the need to protect the public and public interest. There was no demonstrable evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has developed insight or remediated his failings. Having done so, it concluded that such a sanction would be inadequate to protect the public and maintain a proper degree of confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and to declare and maintain proper standards among fellow professionals.

80. The Panel therefore went on to consider striking the Registrant’s name off the HCPC Register of Operating Department Practitioners. It had regard to paragraphs 127-132 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel took into account the impact that such an order would have on the Registrant in terms of his finances and his reputation.

81. In reaching its decision, the Panel had particular regard to paragraphs 76 – 79 and 85 - 89 of the Sanctions Policy. Having done so, it concluded that the Registrant’s convictions were fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register. The nature and gravity of the Registrant’s convictions was such that only a Striking Off Order would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour, to maintain the reputation of the profession, and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

82. In the light of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking-Off Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Philip Michael Hill from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Ms Chowdhury made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for the maximum period of 18 months to cover the 28 day appeal period and the time that might be required to conclude any appeal. She reminded the Panel of its powers pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

2. The application was made on the basis of the serious nature of the Registrant’s offending, the Judge’s sentencing remarks and the sentence imposed. She also submitted that in the circumstances, the public would expect an Interim Order to be put in place to protect the public interest.

3. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who made reference to the case of Sanusi v General Medical Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1172, the Panel decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed and hear the application in the absence of the Registrant. The Registrant was advised in the Notice of Hearing dated 29 May 2024 that an application for an Interim Order might be made. There was nothing to indicate that the Registrant wished to make submissions in relation to this application, and the Panel concluded that it was in the public interest to proceed.

4. Having heard submissions from Ms Chowdhury, on behalf of the HCPC and having taken advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that for the reasons set out in its determination on impairment and sanction, and the ongoing risks identified, that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise in the public interest.

5. The Panel did not consider that the risks in this case could be addressed by an Interim Conditions of Practice Order because of its earlier conclusions that conditions would not be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public or the public interest.

6. The Panel therefore imposed an Interim Suspension Order, for a period of 18 months 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. An 18 month Interim Suspension Order was required to cover the appeal period, should this decision be appealed.

7. This Order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mr Philip Michael Hill