Paul J Cronje-Jarvis

Facts proved: 2, Schedule A
Facts not proved: None
Grounds: Health
Fitness to practise impairment: Yes

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing dated 6 March 2024 complied with the requirements of rules 3,6 and 10B of the Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (‘the Rules’). The notice specified the date, time and venue (remote) of the hearing. It also included the details of the video-conferencing arrangements required to access the hearing and was sent and delivered to the Registrant’s registered email address on 6 March 2024, which was more than the required period of 28 days in advance of the hearing. Therefore, there had been good service of the notice of hearing.

Proceeding in Absence

2. Ms Collins made an application for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant. She informed the Panel that the HCPC’s most recent contact with the Registrant had taken place on 19 February 2024, when he had requested a copy of the expert’s report in the case for a matter unconnected with these proceedings. She told the Panel that the email in which that request was made had been sent by the Registrant from his registered email address. She also referred to the fact that the Hearings Officer had sent the hearing link to the Registrant’s registered email address on 23 June 2024.

3. Ms Collins referred to rule 11 of the Rules and to the Practice Note of the HCPTS, Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant (June 2022) and to case law referred to in that guidance and submitted that in view of all the factors specified in the guidance the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

4. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.

5. The Panel considered that the requirements of rule 11 had been met as to proper service of the notice of hearing. As a general principle, a registrant who is facing a fitness to practise allegation has the right to be present and represented at a hearing. In considering the exercise of its discretion to proceed in the absence of a registrant, a panel is required to strike a balance between fairness to the registrant and fairness to the wider public interest, ensuring that there is adequate focus on public protection. Fairness to the registrant is of prime importance, but the overarching statutory objective of the regulatory requirements is protection of the public and a registrant is required to engage with the regulatory process.

6. The Panel considered the various factors relevant in this case to the exercise of the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The reasons for the Registrant’s absence were unclear. However, his absence was likely to be both deliberate and voluntary. The Registrant has provided no evidence to explain his non-attendance (Redacted).

7. (Redacted)

8. In all those circumstances, the Panel considered that it was fair to both the Registrant, the HCPC and in the wider public interest to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and the Panel decided to do so.

Hearing in Private

9. Ms Collins applied for the hearing to be conducted wholly in private as the hearing would be wholly concerned with health matters and it would not be possible to conduct the hearing partly in private, because other matters were so intertwined with the health matters that it would not be possible to conduct the hearing in such a manner.

10. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted.

11. In view of rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules, the Panel decided that the hearing should be conducted wholly in private for the protection of the private life of the Registrant. The findings to be made by this Committee concerned only the health allegation and all the matters relevant to its decision-making related either to health alone or to matters so connected with them that it would not be practicable to conduct the hearing only partly in private. Therefore, the Panel decided that the entire proceedings should be conducted in private, including the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Application for Interim Order

12. Ms Collins applied on behalf of the HCPC for an interim suspension order of 18 months. She made that application on two of the statutory grounds, namely the protection of members of the public and such an order being otherwise in the public interest.

13. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it has accepted.

14. The Panel decided that the Registrant had been given sufficient notice of the application for an interim order, particularly in view of the email of 25 June 2024 to the Registrant from Blake Morgan on behalf of the HCPC.

15. The Panel also decided that it was fair and appropriate to consider the application in the absence of the Registrant in view of the contents of that email and the Panel’s reasons for its decision to conduct the final hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

16. (Redacted)

17. (Redacted)

18. (Redacted)

19. (Redacted)

20. (Redacted)

21. (Redacted)

22. In view of the likely time for the disposal of any appeal, the Panel decided to impose an interim suspension order of 18 months.

Transfer to the Conduct and Competence Committee

23. (Redacted) Panel decided to transfer the conviction allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee, and it so directs.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Paul J Cronje-Jarvis for a period of 12 months.

This Order will be reviewed before its expiry on 25 July 2025.

History of Hearings for Paul J Cronje-Jarvis