Olubunmi Onianwa

Preliminary Matters

Delayed start to the hearing

1. The Registrant had notified the HCPC in advance of the hearing starting that she would only be present on the first and last day of the hearing. The Registrant had indicated that this was due to being at work, and that if she was not at work she would not be paid.

2. The Registrant had indicated in correspondence that she was denying the Allegation but had not provided a detailed account of the events.

3. On 04 March 2024, Mr Micklewright addressed the Panel to explain that, in the interests of fairness, he and the Legal Assessor had spent some time with the Registrant during the course of the morning to explain the hearing process. He said that he and the Legal Assessor had used the opportunity to explain the importance of the Registrant attending the hearing and having an opportunity to advance her case.

4. Mr Micklewright proposed that in light of the Registrant’s indication that she might not be present for the whole hearing, she should be given a fair opportunity to set down in writing the case she wishes to advance. Therefore, if the Registrant is not present for any part of the hearing, the Panel would still be aware of her explanations and understand the contested issues in the case. Mr Micklewright said that witness availability was such that it would not adversely impact on the timetable if the Registrant was provided with the remainder of the day (04 March 2024) to put together a written statement for the hearing.

5. The Registrant told the Panel that she would try and update the written information that she had given thus far to respond to the Allegation, and to give her account of what happened. She said that she would be able to log into the hearing and have the hearing running in the background on her mobile telephone. The Registrant said that dependent on what she was doing at the specific time, she might not be able to speak but could listen.

6. The Registrant did not want to have her camera on. She turned the camera on for a few minutes for the Panel to see her then turned it off again. The Registrant did not provide a reason to the Panel for not wanting to have her camera on. It was not suggested by her that this was for any purpose relating to reasonable adjustments or special measures.

7. The Panel agreed that the hearing should be stood down for the remainder of the day and would resume on 05 March 2024 with the intention of the HCPC dealing with any preliminary applications and then calling witness evidence. The Panel asked the Legal Assessor whether it was appropriate for the Registrant to listen in to the hearing whilst doing other things.

8. The Legal Assessor advised that in the interests of fairness, the Panel would need to know to what extent the Registrant was engaged in the hearing. The Legal Assessor advised that if the Registrant was not fully engaged in the hearing, because she was doing other things, she might not be able to respond to points raised, which would be akin to her not being present. The Legal Assessor advised that in those circumstances the Panel would need to consider an application to proceed in absence.

9. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant could attend as often as she wanted but that the Panel would need to properly understand the extent to which the Registrant was engaged. Any lack of clarity about the Registrant’s engagement would be compounded by her keeping her camera off. Mr Micklewright accepted that an application for proceeding in absence would need to be made if the Registrant was not planning to be fully engaged on all the hearing days.

10. In advance of the hearing recommencing on 05 March 2024, the Registrant provided a written response to the Allegation. The Registrant also provided a written response to the amended Allegation. Both responses were identical save for the wording of the Allegation. The Registrant also sent an email which she said she had previously sent to the HCPC which she said provided some insight into the circumstances surrounding the case.

Service

11. When the hearing recommenced on 05 March 2024, the Panel asked whether the Registrant was present as she was logged in, but her camera was off, and she was not speaking. The Registrant typed a response in the Microsoft Teams hearing chat (“the chat”), to state ‘I am present but not speaking’. She typed in the chat that she was ‘doing something else in the background.’ The Registrant then dropped in and out of the hearing several times. When she dropped out, she did attempt to log back in (on some occasions), but when the Hearings Officer and/or the Legal Assessor tried to admit the Registrant to the hearing room it was not always successful. The Registrant typed into the chat that she was having ‘Network issues’.

12. The Hearings Officer proceeded to deal with service. The Panel had been provided with a service bundle which was also shared on the screen. The Hearings Officer spoke to the documents and submitted that good service had been effected.

13. The Panel had a copy of the Notice of Hearing letter (dated 09 November 2023) sent by email on 09 November 2023 to the Registrant’s e-mail address (as contained within the Certificate signed by the Registrar dated 09 November 2023). The Notice of Hearing letter confirmed the dates (Monday 04 March 2024 – Friday 15 March 2024) and times of the hearing as well as informing the Registrant that this would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant the opportunity to attend at the hearing and/or make written statements in advance.

14. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the Health Professions Order 2001 and the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, namely rule 6. The Legal Assessor advised that good service was effected by notifying the Registrant of the time and date of the hearing at her registered email address, with 28 days’ notice.

15. The Panel was satisfied that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the hearing had been served on the Registrant, having been sent to the Registrant at her registered email address on 09 November 2023. The Panel therefore determined that notice had been properly served in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in Absence

16. Mr Micklewright submitted that this was an unusual situation as the Registrant is present and intends to be present but without her camera on and without participating. In the Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC she had indicated that it was her intention to only be present for the first and last day of the hearing. However, it appeared that her current intention was to have the hearing running in the background whilst she was doing other things. Mr Micklewright submitted that without the Registrant being visible, the Panel could not be sure that the Registrant was present. For example, she might have computer issues impacting on her connection or she might leave the room and remain logged in.

17. Mr Micklewright submitted that this is not a binary situation. He said that the Panel needed to consider in principle whether it should proceed in the Registrant’s absence on those occasions when she is not present.

18. Mr Micklewright referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on proceeding in absence and the relevant factors to consider as established by case law. He submitted that the following factors are significant:

• There is a public interest in proceeding with the hearing.

• There are multiple witnesses ready to give evidence this week and it would be inconvenient to arrange for them to come on another occasion.

• There is a general interest in dealing with cases expeditiously especially as the Panel will be asked to consider the reliability and credibility of the witnesses who will be asked about their recollection of events.

• There is no information to suggest that an adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance at a later date.

• The Registrant has indicated that she is content for the hearing to proceed with her listening in the background, so the Panel can conclude that she has waived her right to attend.

• There is no good reason for an adjournment.

• The Panel in its duty to conduct a fair hearing can explore with witnesses any points that the Registrant may have raised based on her written responses to date.

19. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the factors it should take into account when considering proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. This included reference to rule 11 of the Rules and to the cases of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, R v Jones (Anthony) [2003] 1AC1 and Sanusi v GMC [2019] EWCA Civ 1172. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS guidance ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ dated June 2022.

20. The Panel considered all the information before it, together with the submissions made by Mr Micklewright on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing letter had been sent to the Registrant on 09 November 2023 informing her of the hearing as per its decision on service.

21. The Panel concluded that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant, (on those occasions that she was not present) for the following reasons:

• The Registrant had not sought an adjournment of the hearing and there was no indication from her that she would be willing or able to attend and actively participate on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing the hearing would be unlikely to secure her full attendance.

• The Allegation relates to events which are said to have taken place some time ago (2018-2021). There is a general public interest that the hearing should take place within a reasonable time of the events to which it relates. There are eleven witnesses ready and able to give evidence and any adjournment is likely to be lengthy and would cause inconvenience to the witnesses.

• The Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being present. However, the Panel was content that the Registrant had been provided with sufficient notice and she had provided a written account, which the Panel can take into account when considering the live evidence and when reaching its decision. The Panel also took into account that the Registrant had indicated that she would be in the background and might be able to contribute at times thus mitigating the level of any disadvantage to her.

Application to amend the Allegation

22. Mr Micklewright made an application to amend the Allegation contained in the Notice of Allegation letter sent to the Registrant on 14 September 2022. The amendments Mr Micklewright sought are set out above under the heading ‘Allegation’. Proposed additions are included in bold type and proposed deletions contain strike-through.

23. Mr Micklewright referred to the case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017]. Mr Micklewright submitted that the application for amendment was not being made at a late stage, and it was made at the outset of the hearing before any evidence had been heard. The Registrant was made aware of the application on 04 March 2024 and was provided with a copy of the proposed amendments prior to the start of the second day of the hearing on 05 March 2024. Mr Micklewright accepted that whilst the notice was not a long period of time, it had been sufficient to enable the Registrant to set out her case in response to both the original and amended Allegation (albeit the responses are identical).

24. Mr Micklewright submitted that the amendments sought had no prejudice to the Registrant. In respect of the amendment at particular 2, he submitted that this is a typographical error changing the word ‘threated’ to ‘threat’. In relation to particulars 1(a) and 3(a), he submitted that the removal of the words ‘swore’ and ‘before storming away’ do not in any way cause prejudice or require the Registrant to meet a different case from the one she was on notice of. In relation to the amendment at Particular 1(a), Mr Micklewright submitted that replacing the word ‘frigging’ with ‘fricking’ more properly reflected the evidence as per Colleague 1’s exhibit evidence which was a typed narrative said to have been recorded at the time of events on 12 October 2018.

25. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel has an inherent power to amend an Allegation subject to the requirements to ensure a fair hearing. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017].

26. The Panel kept in mind the overarching objectives of HCPC, and the importance of a fair balance being struck between the aims of public interest and fairness to the Registrant.

27. Having regard to fairness to the Registrant the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was on notice of the proposed amendments and had been able to respond. The Panel was satisfied that the amendments are minor, they do not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation and they seek to better reflect the evidence in the case.

28. The Panel therefore accepted the submissions of Mr Micklewright and agreed that the Allegation should be amended as is set out at the start of this decision.

 

Background

29. The Registrant is a registered Biomedical Scientist. At the material time she was employed as a Band 5 Biomedical Scientist at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”). The Registrant joined the Trust in September 2017 and whilst at the Trust she was undertaking her specialist training to become a Band 6.

30. The particulars of the Allegation relate to her alleged inappropriate oral communication towards four colleagues at the Trust in 2018, 2019 and 2021.

 

Evidence

31. The HCPC relied on the following witness evidence:

• Colleague 1, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as a Band 5 Biomedical Scientist. (Witness statement signed and dated 20/02/2023).

• Colleague 2, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who at the time the Registrant joined the Trust was employed by the Trust as a Band 6 Biomedical Scientist. Prior to the time to which the events relate, Colleague 2 became a Band 7 Senior Biomedical Scientist and was often assigned to supervise the Registrant. (Witness statement signed and dated 01/03/2023).

• Colleague 3, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as an Associate Practitioner, and who worked with the Registrant in the laboratory. (Witness statement signed and dated 02/12/2022).

• FH, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as a Band 4 Associate Practitioner, and who worked with the Registrant in the laboratory. (Witness statement signed and dated 20/06/2023).

• MO, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as an Associate Practitioner, and who worked with the Registrant in the laboratory. (Witness statement signed and dated 20/02/2023).

• SR, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as a Cellular Pathology Operational Manager. SR was the Registrant’s line manager from the time the Registrant started (2017) until SR left the Trust in August 2019. (Witness statement dated 16/03/2023).

• KK, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who was employed by the Trust as a Band 6 Biomedical Scientist at the time the Registrant joined the Trust. KK was appointed by the Trust as a Band 7 Senior Biomedical Scientist in 2018. (Witness statement dated 30/01/2023).

• Colleague 4, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as a Senior Biomedical Scientist, and who in 2019 stepped in as the Registrant’s training officer. (Witness statement signed and dated 12/01/2023).

• AB, a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as a Band 7 Senior Biomedical Scientist. (Witness statement signed and dated 08/12/2022).

• FC, a registered Midwife with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. At the relevant time FC was employed by the Trust as the Deputy Head of Midwifery. FC was the Investigating Officer for the Trust relating to an alleged incident on 08 March 2019 involving the Registrant. (Witness statement signed and dated 05/12/2022).

• LG, who at the relevant time was employed by the Trust as the Clinical Service Manager for Therapy. LG was the Investigating Officer for the Trust in relation to concerns raised about the Registrant in 2021. (Witness statement signed and dated 28/12/2022).

32. Mr Micklewright submitted that the driver for the Registrant’s inappropriate communication (as per the particulars of the Allegation) was the Registrant’s ongoing grievance in respect of her perception (justified or otherwise) of being treated badly by the Trust in not being trained appropriately in her opinion and with other staffs’ training being given priority over hers.

33. The witnesses were all called to give live evidence. Each witness gave evidence on affirmation and relied on their witness statements and exhibits. Large amounts of the witness statements and exhibits were redacted by the HCPC prior to the bundle being sent to the Panel and Legal Assessor.

34. The Panel was mindful of the fact that the Registrant was not always present at the hearing and that she was not represented. Therefore, it was incumbent on the Panel and Legal Assessor to ensure that they explored any weaknesses arising in the evidence, particularly in relation to the points raised by the Registrant in her written statement. The Panel therefore asked questions of clarification in respect of some of the witnesses.

35. The information below sets out a summary of the evidence of each witness and is listed in the order in which the witnesses gave evidence and on what date. The information also included an indication of whether the Registrant was present and whether the Registrant asked any questions in cross examination.

Colleague 2 (evidence on 05 March 2024)

36. In summary Colleague 2’s witness statement stated:

• I only got to know the Registrant on a professional level. Initially I only interacted with her if I was training her in something or if she was assigned to do tasks with me.

• As a Band 7 I was often assigned to supervise the Registrant.

• There were two other seniors working at the laboratory. The seniors would take it in turns to become the ‘laboratory senior’ for one week at a time (so I would be this for one in every three weeks). This was a leadership part of the role including overseeing the rota.

• On 17 October 2018, I was in the laboratory doing some cutting. I pinned the staff rota on the wall. Once the Registrant has seen this, she screamed and shouted about the fact that she is not doing the tasks that she wanted to do. She was very aggressive, asking me when she was going to do BMS cut up training and when she was going to be progressed. The Registrant went downstairs to speak with the senior staff. She then returned upstairs and said that she refused to do cutting next (which is a core task that all staff members are expected to do), as was specified by the rota. I explained to her that there was some flexibility in the rota and suggested discussing it. However, she was aggressive and loud towards me and accused me and the department of using her.

• On 15 November 2018 I was interviewed by the Haematology Operations Manager about this incident. The minutes of the meeting are exhibited to the witness statement.

• On 29 April 2021, all of the Seniors were in the same place, in an office off from the main laboratory. At around 12:30 the Registrant entered the room and approached Colleague 4 to ask her about entering a new procedure code onto WinPath. Colleague 4 responded to say that she did not know how to do this and suggested that the Registrant speak to me because I was the laboratory senior that week. Upon hearing the conversation, I responded that I would do it soon, but the Registrant demanded that Colleague 4 should do it instead. At this point in time, Colleague 4 was the Registrant’s training officer and the Registrant’s relationship was fraught with both me and KK.

• At this point, the Registrant placed her hand on Colleague 4’s shoulder and swung her around in her chair. The Registrant then told Colleague 4 quite aggressively that she should do this rather than myself and demanded that she show her how to enter the code. Colleague 4 then repeated what she said earlier that I was the appropriate person to deal with her request. The Registrant then left the office whilst shouting and making threats. Both AB and Colleague 1 were in the same room and witnessed this incident.

• The behaviour concerned me because it was aggressive, physical contact with a member of staff. I raised these concerns in an email that I wrote on 29 April 2021, which is exhibited. I was not formally interviewed about this incident.

37. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, Colleague 2 corrected an error in his witness statement to confirm that on 17 October 2018 he was a Band 7 not a Band 6.

38. The Registrant was present with her camera off during Colleague 2’s evidence. In response to her comment in the chat box that ‘He hasn’t really said anything’, it was explained that what Colleague 2 says is written in his witness statement and he is adopting the content of that. It was explained to the Registrant that she needed to ask any cross-examination questions now or apply for an adjournment if she is unable to do so because of other concurrent commitments. It was explained that if she does not ask questions to Colleague 2 now (unless the case is adjourned) then she will not get another chance.

39. Mr Micklewright submitted that it appeared that the Registrant was at work hence not being able to ask questions. However, in his submission the Registrant has had more than reasonable opportunity to prepare and understand the process. He submitted that the witnesses are here and that the Panel had already made the decision that it could proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Mr Micklewright submitted that if the Registrant did not ask questions now then the Panel should take a robust case management response and proceed with its own questions for Colleague 2.

40. The Registrant then proceeded to type questions into the chat. The questions were read out to Colleague 2 by either the Legal Assessor, the Chair or Mr Micklewright.

41. In response to the Registrant’s question ‘When did I say both of you will be fired?’, in summary Colleague 2 responded as follows:

• When we had that discussion, in that moment in the senior’s office as the interaction was occurring.

42. In response to the Registrant’s question, ‘When did I repeatedly touch (Colleague 4) and was aggressive towards her?’, in summary Colleague 2 responded as follows:

• Our interactions were not positive. Colleague 4 turned towards me and at that point your tone was aggressive, and you placed your hand on her shoulder to turn her back round to face you and not me and insisted that she show you rather than me. It was at that point.

43. Colleague 2 stated that he did not ‘remember’ the Registrant calling him a ‘fat bastard’ but that it would not surprise him if it did happen.

44. When asked why he was not recognising the Registrant’s experience and registration, in summary Colleague 2 said as follows:

• I would say that I was but that you were not as experienced as you felt that you were. You were working towards the specialist diploma, and you were not very far through it, and your training had been up and down because of a number of interactions with people, not just myself. I felt I recognised you but that you were not performing to the standard we expected of a Trainee Specialist Biomedical Scientist.

45. Colleague 2 was re-examined by Mr Micklewright. In summary Colleague 2 said:

• He felt that in October 2018 the relationship between him and the Registrant was better but that it had progressively got worse. Her interactions with him were very challenging but better than in 2021. By 2021 a number of HR related processes had happened (to the Registrant) and he had been her training officer and then not. One of the other seniors had looked after the Registrant’s training as Colleague 2 and another senior had already had negative experiences with the Registrant and it was felt that she should be moved on to someone else to look after her training and development.

• The Registrant had expressed dissatisfaction with the training and with her rotation through the department and how she was progressing. He thought there were people she did not want to work with or alongside and he thought that there were lots of refusal to do certain tasks that the Registrant felt were Band 4 tasks and below her, so it was very challenging.

Colleague 1 (05 March 2024)

46. In summary Colleague 1’s witness statement stated:

• I knew the Registrant quite well as a colleague and I regularly worked alongside her for two years.

• On 12 October 2018, the Registrant and I were both working in the Histology lab. Histology is the process in which we carry out diagnostic tests on tissue samples to determine the presence of any disease/illness.

• On this day, the Registrant was working on the lab computer. Within this role, a member of staff will monitor the lab's inbox for any extra work requested by consultants. The Registrant was required to make me aware of any extra work that was requested via this inbox. This would allow me to perform and complete this extra work. We were required to work in conjunction with one another.

• At a time before 12:00, I left the room I was working in to ask the Registrant if she could provide me with any extra work for the day. I made this request, as we had to 'wind down' the machine before the end of the day, for cleaning. This ‘wind down’ occurs at around 16:00 every Friday.

• As I approached the Registrant to make this request, I decided to ask the exact same question that she had asked me during the previous week, when our roles were reversed. I decided to do this in an attempt to ensure that the Registrant did not take offence to my comment. When I reached the Registrant, I asked her: "Could you keep on-top of the work, due to the time pressure?", or words to that effect. The time pressure I was referring to, was the time that we had to complete our work before the required 'wind down'. After I made this request, the Registrant instantly turned to me and stated: "Who do you think you are?" or words to that effect. She then rose from the desk, began to approach me while pointing, and continued to repeat her question.

• I did not know how to respond in a manner that would diffuse the sudden outburst from the Registrant. I repeated the question in a different way by saying “could you check the email requests..”, or words to that effect. However, I was over-ridden by her continued outburst. Therefore, I chose to back away from her, and return to the room where I was working. Meanwhile senior team members came out of an adjoining office as they had heard the Registrant’s outburst.

• The Registrant did not apologise for this incident and ignored the Operations Manager’s request of a mediated meeting between me and the Registrant in order to address and resolve this matter.

• My main concern with the Registrant’s behaviour on this day, was the fact that her refusal to work in conjunction with myself would have compromised patient care. If staff members do not work effectively with one another, patient's will face delays in the diagnosis and treatment of their conditions.

• The Registrant’s actions on this day made me feel particularly stressed, due to the fact that I was concerned about the work that I had to complete within the required time frame. I also felt threatened by her behaviour as when she stood up and started to approach me, I was worried that the situation could have escalated further.

• On 16 October 2018, I provided the Operations Manager, with a written account of this incident, via email. This account is exhibited.

• I was interviewed about this incident during an internal investigation, and the interview notes are exhibited.

• On 29 April 2021, an incident occurred between the Registrant, Colleague 2 and Colleague 4. This incident occurred within the senior's office, where I was present. At around 15:00, the Registrant entered the senior's office and approached Colleague 4 who was working on a computer at the time. The Registrant repeatedly tapped Colleague 4 on the shoulder to get her attention. Colleague 4 turned to face the Registrant who asked Colleague 4 to put a new tissue sample code, onto the WinPath system. Not all members of staff can do this. This privilege is reserved to a small number of seniors only.

• Following the Registrant’s question, Colleague 4 stated that she was unable to place a new code upon the system. At this point, Colleague 2 then explained that only seniors could put new codes onto the system. The Registrant ignored Colleague 2 and turned back to Colleague 4. The Registrant then aggressively tapped Colleague 4 on the shoulder, and asked her the same question, and also asked whether Colleague 4 could provide her with the authority to place this new code onto the system. Colleague 2 then explained that this privilege must be kept within the senior team. At this point, the Registrant became angry. I cannot recall exactly what the Registrant said, but I do recall that she was shouting at Colleagues 2 and 4 about the training that they were withholding from her. She then started to leave the room. As she left the room, she said loudly "I will sue you" directed at Colleague 2.

• I would never expect this type of behaviour to take place within the workplace. This expectation is based upon the Trust's behaviour framework and the Trust's care values, which are exhibited to this statement.

• I reported this incident to the managers, via email. This email is exhibited.

47. The Registrant posed questions of cross-examination in the chat and orally. She asked what the meaning is of ‘shut your fricking face’. Colleague 1 said that he did not think it had a kind connotation and that it was meant to embarrass him and stop him talking.

48. The Registrant’s response contained in her statement was put to Colleague 1 and he was asked whether he was rude, whether the Registrant simply told him to go away, and whether he was wrong about what happened.

49. Colleague 1 said that he was civil to the Registrant and although they had a strained relationship, he endeavoured to be professional. He used the same phrasing in his question that day as the Registrant had used to him the week before when their jobs were reversed. She did not simply tell him to go away, she told him to shut his fricking face. He gave a fresh account after the incident and multiple people heard the Registrant raise her voice.

50. In response to questions from the Panel, Colleague 1 said that he had typed out his account of 17 October 2018 around lunch time of that day and that this account was then copied into an email. Colleague 1 told the Panel that in relation to the April 2021 incident, he did not remember the Registrant saying about getting Colleague’s 2 and 4 ‘fired’ but she did say that she would ‘sue’ Colleague 2.

Colleague 3 (05 March 2024)

51. In summary Colleague 3’s witness statement stated:

• On 08 March 2019 I was working separately but in the same lab as the Registrant. Also present in the lab was MO. I was using a microtome to prepare microscope slides from wax blocks with embedded tissue. We called this ‘cutting’. There was a large number of blocks that needed cutting.

• The Registrant was sat at the computer on the other side of the room and appeared to be asleep, or pretending to be asleep, with her legs up on the desk.

• I said to the Registrant that “if you are bored, there are plenty of blocks to cut”, or something similar. In reply the Registrant stated, “do you want me to come over there and give you a slap”. I did not say anything as I was taken back by the comment. MO intervened and told the Registrant that she could not speak to people in that way. The Registrant did not apologise. I did not want to carry on working with her following this comment. I felt threatened by the comment, and I did not feel comfortable going back to work following the incident.

• This incident was reported to senior management, but I cannot recall whether it was me or MO who reported it.

• FC conducted an investigation into this incident, and I provided a statement relating to the incident which is exhibited.

52. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, Colleague 3 said that she thought the Registrant was asleep that day due to her having her eyes closed and being sat back in her chair with her legs crossed together up on the desk.

53. Colleague 3 said that she made the comment to the Registrant because it was a busy department and there were lots of blocks to cut. Colleague 3 explained that the pink blocks are for patients awaiting a cancer diagnosis and that if the Registrant was not doing anything then she should be helping move the patient samples through the lab to help with the back log.

54. The Registrant’s account was put by Mr Micklewright to Colleague 3. In response Colleague 3 said that she had not said anything to the Registrant about a pillow and did not recall mentioning a blanket. Colleague 3 did not recall the Registrant saying, ‘I wish I could slap you, however, I can’t’.

55. Colleague 3 said she felt the Registrant’s demeanour was hostile when she made the comment.

56. In response to questions from the Panel, Colleague 3 said that she was a Band 4 which was a lower Band than the Registrant.

57. Colleague 3 explained that any band could ‘cut’ blocks and that everyone should muck in when there is work to do especially given the strain on the NHS. It is important to get the work through the lab as it adds to the patient’s diagnoses time if there is delay in dealing with the specimen.

58. In re-examination Colleague 3 was taken to an Investigation Statement Form dated 29 April 2019 from the Trusts’ investigation. This states, ‘I then asked her (the Registrant) whether the extras role normally included going for a nap, rather than doing any actual work. To this she (the Registrant) replied “Do you want me to come over there and give you a slap”. Colleague 3 said that she had typed the document when her memory of the incident was still fresh, as compared to her witness statement, and that she would have put as much detail in as she could remember.

59. The Registrant was not present throughout Colleague 3’s evidence.

FH (evidence on 05 March 2024)

60. In summary FH’s witness statement stated:

• On 17 October 2018 I sent an email to the Operational Managers which described an incident I witnessed concerning the Registrant. The email was written on the same day as the incident that I witnessed. I spoke with my senior who suggested that I should write it down and I remember staying behind after work to write down my recollection of events as it was quite shocking. The email is exhibited.

• On 17 October 2018, the rota was issued in the main lab by Colleague 2. When it was pinned to the board, the Registrant was unhappy with it. From what I remember the Registrant had been assigned microtomy, this is a highly skilled task that was routinely performed by Bands 4, 5, and 6. However, the Registrant preferred to work in other areas as she was working towards completing her specialist portfolio. After she had seen the rota, the Registrant became verbally aggressive and paced around the laboratory.

• Colleague 2 asked the Registrant what was wrong, but she would not say. The Registrant was telling Colleague 2 that he did not respect her and that he was holding her back in her portfolio.

• After this discussion, the Registrant stopped doing her laboratory work. Colleague 2 went away but returned shortly afterwards when the Registrant was sitting at a computer and Colleague 2 told the Registrant to move onto quality control. The Registrant initially ignored him, so he repeated this and then walked away. At this point the Registrant called Colleague 2 a ‘stupid, fat bastard’. I was sat close enough to hear the Registrant say this, but she only muttered it quietly, so I do not know if Colleague 2 heard this as he did not react, and we never discussed it.

• In my opinion the Registrant handled this situation in an unprofessional manner.

• On 08 November 2018 I was interviewed about the incident by the Operations Manager. The interview notes are exhibited and are an accurate reflection.

61. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, FH was taken to an email containing her name as the sender, dated 17 October 2018 at 17:43. The email sets out the events of 17 October 2018 as allegedly witnessed. FH said that she had sent this email whilst the events were still fresh in her memory.

62. The Registrant’s version of events was put to FH. In response FH said that she believed her recollection of what happened to be accurate and that she would not just make up someone calling someone a derogatory term.

63. The Registrant was not present for FH’s evidence.

Colleague 4 (evidence on 06 March 2024)

64. In summary Colleague 4’s witness statement stated:

• I stepped in as the Registrant’s training officer as she did not have a good relationship with her previous one, namely Colleague 2.

• On 29 April 2021 at approximately 12:30, I returned from lunch to my computer in the office. Also in the office was Colleague 2 and AB. The Registrant entered the office and approached me. She asked me to put a new code onto the WinPath system. I informed the Registrant that I did not know how to put a new code onto the system, nor did I have the relevant clearance. I asked Colleague 2 if he would help. Colleague 2 said that he would help but would do so later in the day.

• Colleague 2 was senior of the week and asked the Registrant why she had not asked him to help given he was the senior of the week. The Registrant became angry and asked why I had to involve Colleague 2. I did not answer and turned back to my computer to continue with my work.

• The Registrant then tapped me on the shoulder and said, “look at me when I’m talking to you”, or words to that effect. This concerned me as she made contact with me at a time when due to Covid-19 individuals were required to wear masks and keep their distance. The Registrant continued tapping my shoulder quite hard.

• The Registrant became even more angry, and she raised her voice and stated, “I will make you two get fired”. This comment was directed at Colleague 2 and me. AB did not get involved in the incident.

• The Registrant did not apologise to me or Colleague 2.

• I would never expect to be shouted at in the workplace. This incident significantly impacted on me as I felt threatened by the Registrant’s actions and comment. Immediately after this incident, Colleague 2 and I emailed the Operational Manager to report it. This email is exhibited. I was interviewed as part of LG’s investigation into the Registrant. The interview was on 13 May 2021 and the interview notes are exhibited.

65. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, Colleague 4 said that it had been at the back of her right shoulder where the Registrant had touched her and that it was hard, and the Registrant was angry. Colleague 4 said that the events where fresh in her mind when she gave her interview with LG.

66. The Registrant’s account was put to Colleague 4 by Mr Micklewright who reiterated that the Registrant did say about getting them fired and did touch her on the shoulder several times. Colleague 4 said that she recalled being very upset as it was covid and you should have been two metres from people, but the Registrant was in Colleague 4’s intimate space. Colleague 4 could not recall or confirm whether the Registrant said, “I will sue you”.

67. In response to questions from the Panel, Colleague 4 said that the tapping was hard and “to the bone”. Colleague 4 said that it was not a nice tap to get my attention, the Registrant was angry and wanted Colleague 4 to look at her. Colleague 4 said that she did not want to get involved with the argument between the Registrant and Colleague 2 and just wanted to do her own job.

68. Colleague 4 said that she sent the email about the incident on the same day of the incident. She has been told by management that anything that happened with the Registrant should be written down in a statement and sent to management. Colleague 4 did not recall why she did not mention the wording about getting fired in the email but did mention it in the interview with LG. Colleague 4 said that she had never come across behaviour like the Registrant’s before and that this was the first email of the kind she had sent, and she did not know what to write.

69. The Registrant was not present for Colleague 4’s evidence.

MO (evidence on 06 March 2024)

70. In summary MO’s witness statement stated:

• On 08 March 2019, I directly witnessed an incident that took place between the Registrant and Colleague 3.

• On this date Colleague 3 was working with a number of embedded samples, ready to cut. I was working on a computer next to Colleague 3. The Registrant was sat on a chair, with her feet on a desk, in the same room. It looked like she was sleeping as she had her eyes closed.

• Although I cannot recall the exact comment, Colleague 3 jokingly offered the Registrant a blanket. The Registrant then replied to Colleague 3 by stating “do you want me to come over there and give you a slap” or words to that effect.

• I told the Registrant that you could not say things like that and that she could not threaten violence or words to that effect.

• The Registrant did not provide me with an apology. I would not expect this type of threat to be made in a workplace. It made me feel uncomfortable and quite shaken.

• On a date I cannot recall, I reported this incident to the Operational Manager via a verbal conversation. The incident was investigated by FC.

71. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, MO said that she remembered Colleague 3 saying about the blanket to the Registrant. She said that she was within 2/3 metres of the Registrant. She considered the Registrant’s demeanour when the Registrant made the slap remark to be dismissive.

72. The Registrant’s account was put to MO by Mr Micklewright, who said that her recollection was as per her witness statement. MO said that in relation to the pillow comment this was similar to MO’s recollection about sleep, but MO specifically recalled having blankets in the lab at that time as the heating had gone out so there were blankets dotted about. She did not recall any mention of a pillow.

73. The Registrant was present for MO’s evidence. The Registrant stated that she did not recall MO being present at that time. MO said she remembered being there.

74. In response to questions from the Panel, MO said that she could create codes on WinPath even as a Band 4. She did not believe it was just a senior task. MO said she did not recall anyone else being present during the incident between the Registrant and Colleague 3.

SR (evidence on 06 March 2024)

75. In summary SR’s witness statement stated:

• I did not know the Registrant very well as, although she had been in the department since 2017, she was a very private person. The Registrant and I have never worked alongside each other. Our relationship was an exclusively professional one.

• Although I did not witness it, MO informed me that an incident had taken place whereby the Registrant threatened Colleague 3. This incident took place on or around the 7 March 2019, although I cannot recall the precise date.

• The Registrant had not been doing any work on the morning of 7 March 2019. On two occasions, on the morning in question, I had already been out to enquire whether the Registrant needed some work to complete, but she declined. I did not want to push the Registrant into completing any work as I was aware of an impending HR meeting later in the afternoon that she needed to be on site for. I did not want her to leave the premises due to this.

• The threats made by the Registrant were not appropriate and were never justified.

• This incident was concerning to me as the Registrant was very disrespectful towards Colleague 3 and it had an impact on her emotional wellbeing and ability to feel safe within the workplace. It was not the first situation whereby the Registrant had spoken inappropriately to other staff members.

• Consequently, I reported my concerns to the Service Manager, and allowed him to deal with the incident. I am unaware as to what actions, if any, he took regarding that incident specifically.

• A number of actions, and investigations, were initiated into the Registrants attitude and work ethic. The Registrant had commenced grievance proceedings against the department. The Registrant was frustrated about her progress and raised a grievance directly to the Chief Executive.

• The Registrant felt that her training was moving too slowly. However, within the Trust, we would use a rota to train different members of staff upon different techniques and laboratory equipment. The Registrant was often not happy that other members of staff were being trained before her. I tried to explain that we were progressing her as quickly as we could, while ensuring everyone was getting fair access to training opportunities. An investigation was carried out to discover whether there was any training bias within the Trust. No evidence of training bias was found.

76. The Registrant was not initially present for SR’s evidence. The Panel asked questions of SR. In response to Panel questions, SR said that she had got involved with doing the audit in relation to the potential training bias. The outcome of the audit was that there was fair exposure across the staff. SR felt it was imperative that the audit was carried out due to the upset that the Registrant felt. SR recalled that on the day MO told her about the comment to Colleague 3, she distinctly remembers the Registrant sat with her phone out, which was a common thing if she was not undertaking any work. SR said that the Registrant was often sat with her feet on the desk, relaxed and leaning back and not engaging with anything going on in the lab. SR said that she (SR) was acutely aware of the impact this had on the rest of the team.

77. SR told the Panel that the reason she did not challenge the Registrant that day was due to not wanting her to leave the site due to the impending HR meeting. SR explained that in the past when the Registrant had been challenged, she was liable to leave and go home and so she (SR) did not want that to happen.

78. At this point the Registrant joined and posted in the chat that she was not able to ask questions orally but that she did have a question for SR. The Registrant asked a number of questions in the chat, which were posed by either the Legal Assessor or the Panel Chair. In response to the Registrant’s questions, SR said that she did not recall the Registrant making a complaint about Colleague 1. SR said that there would have been a training plan for the Registrant and that the training plans would be created by the senior members of the team. SR explained that training was not a “free for all” and that the team had to do things methodically. SR said that she did not have access to any training plans as she is no longer at the Trust.

79. SR said that in relation to the Registrant’s specialist portfolio, it was discussed at her probation review and thereafter it was ordered, to the best of her knowledge. SR said that the Registrant was frequently rostered onto Microtomy but no more than other staff.

80. SR believed that the team worked in an environment where being respectful and compassionate was promoted. However, there were times when people perhaps did not respond in quite such a respectful manner based on scenarios’ being played out at that time. SR said it was not acceptable to be snappy and short but sometimes the Registrant would give curt responses and people would question that and bite back.

81. SR said that she had not witnessed anyone else respond in a disrespectful manner, but she could not say “hand on heart” that this never happened, it may well have done. SR said that she is not saying the Registrant is not a good person. SR said that hoped that the Registrant did not think that she had been disrespectful to her. The Registrant said that SR had allowed others to do it to her. SR recalled an occasion when she walked out on the Registrant as the conversation had ended and there was nowhere else to go with it, so SR left the room.

82. The Registrant’s final question to SR was, whether following the Registrant’s dismissal, aside from the HCPC, was the dismissal discussed with any other person. SR replied to say not to her knowledge and certainly not by her.

FC (evidence on 07 March 2024)

83. In summary FC’s witness statement stated:

• I was also the Investigating Officer for the incident involving the Registrant. I did not know the Registrant in any capacity, before conducting this investigation.

• In March 2019, I was commissioned by the Pathology Services Manager, to complete this investigation. This investigation was completed on 26 April 2019. The investigation team was composed of myself and a HR advisor who was present when I conducted interviews with relevant witnesses and took notes.

• My role in this investigation was to review the investigation's terms of reference and to ensure that I interviewed the relevant witnesses to gain an overall understanding of the allegations and the surrounding context. This witness statement specifically discussed the allegation that on 08 March 2019, the Registrant issued a physical threat verbally to Colleague 3. The investigation report is exhibited.

• During the investigation, the Registrant admitted (by email) directing the alleged threat to Colleague 3. The email from the Registrant is exhibited.

• In her email dated 29 March 2019 the Registrant stated that she did do all of the things that have been documented in the investigation's terms of reference. The Registrant further stated that she did not have any further views on the matter. Within the same email, the Registrant stated that she felt that there was "a cover up" that needed to "come out". The Registrant continued by stating the Trust was accusing her of inappropriate behaviours, while claiming that the Trust was trying to paint her as the "bad guy". This was not the case.

• The Registrant was not responsive throughout the investigation. She only sent us two emails and refused to be interviewed.

84. FC said at the time of the investigation she was the Deputy Head of Midwifery for the Trust. FC said that in terms of the Registrant’s admissions by email, they were in response to the terms of reference. For the purposes of these HCPC proceedings, the relevant term of reference notes that on 08 March 2019 the Registrant ‘issued a physical threat verbally when asked by [Colleague 3], why you were sitting with your eyes closed and not working.’ The emails FC referred from the Registrant both contained responses to the suspension letter, stating ‘I did what was written in the suspension letter I received’ and ‘I did everything that I was accused of in the suspension letter.’ FC said that she (FC) had not seen the suspension letter until after she had concluded her investigation. FC was shown the suspension letter contained in the bundle and confirmed that it was the letter that she was referring to in terms of the Registrant’s admissions. The suspension letter dated 19 March 2019 states that the purpose of the investigation is to investigate whether the Registrant has ‘behaved in a verbally aggressive manner to senior scientific staff and your colleagues’. Other wording in the letter relating to the Trust investigations was redacted.

85. The Registrant was not present for FC’s evidence.

KK (evidence on 07 March 2024)

86. In summary KK’s witness statement stated:

• I worked with the Registrant on a number of occasions.

• I expect staff to treat each other with respect and compassion at all times. Also, as Senior Biomedical Scientist, when it is my week running the lab, I would expect my decisions and instructions to be respected.

• The Registrant’s conduct concerned me as it may have led to other members of staff believing that this was an acceptable standard of behaviour, which could result in standards slipping, leading to a fall in the quality of our work. A fall in quality of work would lead to significant delays for patients, who are awaiting important medical results.

87. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, KK confirmed that he is currently in a Band 7 role which he moved into during 2018. Prior to that he was a Band 6. KK said that he had started with the Trust as a trainee in 2004 and that he had always followed instruction and stressed the importance of working as a team.

88. At this point the Registrant came into the hearing. Her camera was off. She gave a virtual thumbs up to say she was able to hear.

89. KK told the Panel about the impact staff refusing to do work would have on the work process. He said that work refusal would impact on the processing times of specimens which could lead to delay for patients getting their results and any treatment they might require. KK said that “every specimen in the lab is a patient”.

90. Initially the Registrant had no questions for KK.

91. In response to Panel questions, KK said that in his interview with LG he had spoken about the occasion where he had seen the Registrant sat on a chair with her feet in the table and her eyes closed. He recalled seeing the Registrant doing this and said it had occurred in his first week as senior. KK said that he knew about the alleged slap comment but that he did not hear those words spoken, he was told by another staff member.

92. KK said that he could not stress enough the importance of communication in the lab. You need to tell others what you are doing to ensure that the sample is taken properly through the workflow. It becomes a problem if you have a disjointed member of staff who is not willing to discuss things and not cooperate or work as a team member. KK said that flexibility at work is important, and that staff should follow the work though the lab if they have finished the work they have been set.

93. KK told the Panel that he has never seen anyone (apart from the Registrant) put their feet on the desk. He felt the Registrant’s behaviour was a form of protest as it cannot have been comfy due to the high desk. He said that whilst someone is sat with their feet up, there is a specimen somewhere in the lab waiting for attention.

94. In response to questions from the Registrant, KK said that he thought that when she was sat with her feet up, she was on ‘extras’ duty. He described how she was sat.

95. KK said that if someone had finished their work, they did not have free time as they are employed for 7.5 hours work per day. KK said that in terms of picking up other work, most staff use their initiative, and he would expect to see people go to the pinch point and help out. KK said it was important for staff to speak to the seniors if they needed protected time to do their training or portfolio work.

LG (evidence on 08 March 2024)

96. In summary LG’s witness statement stated:

• In April 2022 I was appointed as the Investigating Officer into concerns that had been raised about the Registrant's behaviour. Prior to the disciplinary investigation, I had never met with the Registrant. I was asked to undertake the investigation because of this so the investigation was objective and unbiased.

• The investigation was formally launched on 7 May 2022. A letter was sent to the Registrant to notify her about the investigation, and I received a copy of this. This letter is included as an exhibit. The terms of reference were also sent alongside the letter. The terms of reference are included as an exhibit.

• The concerns related to a series of alleged incidents including acting aggressively towards her colleagues on 29 April 2021.

• A HR Advisor was appointed to assist me with the investigation. The investigations always follow the Trust Staff Investigation Policy. This policy is included as an exhibit. My first step was to contact the various people that were mentioned in the terms of reference, and I sent a copy of the allegations to each individual but only what was relevant to what they had witnessed. The various witness interviews that I conducted are included within the appendices to my report. I put the questions to the witnesses and the HR Advisor recorded the notes.

• Three staff members provided statements in relation to the allegation of aggressive behaviour towards colleagues on 29 April 2021 and these are exhibited. The three staff were: Colleague 1, AB, and Colleague 2. I also conducted interviews with five staff who had witnessed the incidents and had information to share. These interview notes of staff members are exhibited. The five staff members included: Colleague 4, KK, and MO.

• I interviewed the Registrant on 17 May 2021. The Registrant denied the allegation about aggressive behaviour and denied physical contact with Colleague 4 on 29 April 2021.

• The Registrant said in her appraisal (exhibited) that she speaks to her colleagues with respect. There is also a team agreement document (exhibited) which says that staff should communicate using appropriate language and tone. The interview notes with the Registrant are included as an exhibit.

• I submitted my report on 16 June 2022, and it is included as an exhibit.

97. The Registrant was not present for LG’s evidence. The Panel asked LG to clarify the reference to dates in 2022 mentioned in her statement. LG apologised and said that where the date reads 2022, it should read 2021.

98. The Registrant then joined the hearing. The Registrant asked LG whether her dismissal had been discussed with other people aside from the HCPC and prospective employers. LG replied that she had not discussed it with anyone apart from with the HCPC legal team as part of this hearing process. LG said that she was not aware of the outcome of the dismissal as she had only attended the disciplinary hearing to present her findings and then she left before any decision was made. LG said that the decision of the disciplinary panel had not been communicated to her.

Application to recall witnesses

99. After LG had concluded her evidence and left the hearing, the Registrant made an application to recall the following witnesses:

• Colleague 1.

• Colleague 2.

• Colleague 3.

• Colleague 4.

• FH.

• MO.

• FC.

• KK.

100. The Registrant told the Panel that she wanted to recall the witnesses to ask whether her dismissal had been discussed with other people aside from the HCPC and prospective employers. The Registrant said that she had asked the question to SR and had just asked it of LG but had not asked the other witnesses.

101. The Registrant said that the reason for the question relates to the contents of a reference from a locum position she held in 2022. The Registrant drew the Panel’s attention to the reference which is included in the bundle. The Registrant submitted that some comments in the reference seem to be similar to comments made at the Trust and therefore she wondered if her dismissal had been discussed elsewhere. The Registrant said that she had been a permanent member of staff at the Trust and a locum in the 2022 post but the issues she experienced were similar in how she was treated.

102. The Registrant said that she thought that if it had been discussed it had affected her job prospects for the 2022 job although she had got another job since then.

103. Mr Micklewright opposed the application. He submitted the question was not relevant to the issues the Panel has to resolve at any stage of the hearing process. He said that he had anticipated that the Registrant’s reason for asking to recall the witnesses was related to whether they had discussions between themselves, and to explore contamination of evidence either deliberately or inadvertently. However, this is not the Registrant’s reasoning, instead it relates to subsequent employers, which for the purpose of these proceedings is irrelevant.

104. Mr Micklewright further submitted that irrespective of relevance, the witnesses have already been called and have given evidence. He submitted that there is no good reason to recall them, the Registrant has missed the opportunity due to her own voluntary absence (at times) and no good reason has been given as to why she did not ask this question of the witnesses before. He submitted that the Registrant had proper notice of the contents of the witness statements, and she was aware then when she was not in attendance the Panel would be proceeding in her absence. Mr Micklewright submitted that when the Registrant had not been in attendance, she lost the right to ask questions of cross examination. Whilst the Panel must explore the Registrant’s case in her absence, he submitted that the Panel had been given no suggestion by the Registrant that collusion was part of her case, and even now she is not suggesting that.

105. Mr Micklewright submitted that failing to recall the witnesses would not amount to unfairness or amount to procedural irregularities. He submitted that the question the Registrant wishes to pose does not go to the heart of any issues nor does it go to the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses, as collusion does not form part of the Registrant’s case.

106. Mr Micklewright submitted that there were also practical considerations to take into account, for example whether the witnesses are available to be recalled. He said that recalling witnesses may well put the completion of the hearing at risk, which could impact on the Panel’s ability to assess the evidence in a timely manner. Mr Micklewright said that fairness is not just relevant to the Registrant but also to the HCPC and the public and there is a public interest in dealing with cases expeditiously.

107. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor referred to Rule 10 (4) of the Rules which sets out the order of the proceedings to be followed but does give the Panel discretion to depart from that order if it determines otherwise. The Legal Assessor advised that in order to decide whether it would be fair and proportionate to allow the recall of witnesses the Panel may wish to take into account the following matters:

1. Fairness to the Registrant who is unrepresented and therefore may not be familiar with law or procedure relevant to these proceedings. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Unrepresented Registrants.

2. Any impact on timings acceding to the application would have bearing in mind the Panel’s statutory obligation imposed under Article 32(3) of the Health Professions Order 2001 to conduct proceedings expeditiously.

3. Reference to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Case Management Directions and Preliminary Hearings, which states that in fitness to practise proceedings, the interests of justice are best served by a process which is simple, accessible and fair and where the issues in dispute are identified at the earliest opportunity. In relation to the Article 32(3) obligation the practice note states that: Panels should meet that obligation by making full use of their case management powers, to ensure that cases are heard without undue delay, fairly, justly and in a manner which: • is proportionate to their importance and complexity; • encourages engagement and co-operation by the parties; • avoids inflexibility or unnecessary formality in the proceedings and makes effective use of the Panel’s time and expertise.

4. Fairness to the HCPC – bearing in mind that the Registrant was provided with the witness statements well in advance of the hearing and that she has already been afforded the opportunity to cross examine each and every witness who has produced a statement. The Registrant used the opportunity to ask questions both oral and written of multiple witnesses.

5. What prejudice, if any, the recalling of witnesses would cause.

6. Fairness to the witnesses who are working professionals who have already made time and attended the hearing.

7. The purpose of further cross examination in relation to the Registrant’s case. In general terms it is important to work on the basis that the purpose of the cross examination is to challenge the evidence in the witness statement, put the party's case to that witness and give them an opportunity to respond. It has to relate back to the issues to be resolved in a case so the remit of cross-examination should be restricted to keep it relevant to the issues.

8. Regard to the over-arching objective which includes public protection, public confidence in the profession and promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for member of the profession.

108. The Panel had careful regard to all of the information before it and the submissions it heard from both parties. The Panel concluded that the question which the Registrant now wishes to pose is not relevant to the key issues the Panel needs to decide on, either at the facts stage, or at any later stage should facts be found proved. The Panel agreed with Mr Micklewright that the Registrant is not suggesting witness collusion, which would be relevant to the credibility of witnesses and thus go to the central issues in the case. Instead, her question relates to subsequent employment and therefore falls outside the scope of the Panel’s role in determining facts, potentially being more relevant to any grievance she has with the Trust.

109. Aside from the relevance factor, the Panel also determined that it would not be fair or proportionate to recall the witness due to the impact it would have on the timeliness of the proceedings. The Panel is under a duty to conduct the proceedings expeditiously, although this is to be balanced with ensuring that the proceedings are fair. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had been given sufficient notice of the HCPC’s case and the witness documentation it was relying on. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been provided with ample opportunity to ask any cross-examination questions and she had asked the question to two witnesses, both of whom had denied discussing the dismissal.

110. The Panel had also provided the Registrant with the opportunity to ask cross-examination questions in the chat rather than orally to ensure that she could participate. Therefore, not acceding to the application would not cause any unfairness to the Registrant. In contrast, the Panel decided that allowing the application to recall the witnesses would cause unfairness to the witnesses who have already taken time out of their working lives to come and give evidence. Also, it would cause unfairness to the public interest in dealing with cases in a timely manner and proportionate to the issues in question. The Panel therefore dismissed the Registrant’s application to recall the witnesses.

AB (evidence on 08 March 2024)

111. In summary AB’s witness statement stated:

• I did not know the Registrant very well. Sometimes the Registrant and I would work in the same lab, but never in conjunction with one another. It was very hard to get to know the Registrant, she was a very private person.

• I witnessed an incident on 29 April 2021 which occurred between the Registrant and Colleague 2. On that date Colleague 2 was ‘Senior of the week’. I was working in the same room as Colleague 2, Colleague 4 and the Registrant. Earlier in the day the Registrant had asked Colleague 4 a question regarding how to put a new code onto the departments system, despite Colleague 2 being Senior of the week. The Registrant was not happy that only senior member of staff was allowed to input new codes into the system.

• Colleague 2 asked the Registrant why she did not come to him, as he was Senior of the week. In reply the Registrant became angry and began to shout quite loudly. I cannot recall exactly why the Registrant was shouting but I do recall that the Registrant shouted, “I will make you two get fired”, or words to that effect. This comment was directed at Colleagues 2 and 4. The Registrant then left the room.

• I cannot recall any other specific comments that the Registrant made at the time of her outburst. However, on the day of the incident I emailed the Operations Services Manager to report this incident. This contemporaneous reporting email is exhibited.

• I cannot recall if the incident was discussed between Colleague 2, Colleague 4 and myself once the Registrant had left the room. The Registrant did not discuss the incident with me at any point.

• I would not expect myself or any colleagues to be subject to the kind of comment that the Registrant said. I have never witnessed an incident like this previously and have never witnessed one since.

• The Registrant’s behaviour was unacceptable, and we were all very shocked by her outburst.

• On a date which I cannot recall, the Registrant was sat with her feet up on a table in the lab, while refusing to do any work. I cannot recall anything more specific about this incident, but I was called by another member of staff to come and see the Registrant in this position through a glass door.

112. In examination in chief by Mr Micklewright, AB said that the Registrant was shouting loudly considering that the staff members present were all in one small room near to each other. AB described it as 6 out of 10 if 10 was the loudest. AB said that as well as saying the comment about getting fired, the Registrant had also made a comment along the lines of “I will sue you two”. AB said that the Registrant had made both comments then left the room. AB was referred to her exhibited email dated 29 April 2021 at 13:18. AB said that she was asked to put the incident in writing in an email shortly after it happened. When asked why the comment about not getting fired was not included in the email, AB said that she thought this was because the HCPC solicitor had drafted the statement following speaking with her and that she recalled that both things were said at some point during the conversation.

113. The Registrant asked oral questions in cross examination. In response to the questions AB said that on 29 April 2021, the Registrant had seemed upset that she was not allowed to put a new code on WinPath herself. AB said the Registrant did not seem to understand why it needed a senior to do it. AB thought that the Registrant perhaps has an issue with Colleague 2 being the senior of the week or even an issue with the system of senior of the week. AB thought that things had got out of hand and very heated, unnecessarily so. AB said she could not recollect what the Registrant had said apart from the threats that were made by her as she left the room. AB said that no one had compelled her to write anything and that she was reporting what she remembered from that day. AB said that the Registrant did say “yes you wait soon I will sue you” to Colleague 2 and 4. AB said she was not making her evidence up. In response to being asked if the Registrant was respectful in interactions with the witness, AB said that she did not have direct contact with the Registrant. AB said that they did not have an issue between them, and this was not a personal issue, but AB had witnessed how the Registrant was with other staff members. AB said that she had not discussed the Registrant’s dismissal with anyone else.

114. In response to Panel questions, AB did not recall who had asked her to look at the Registrant when she had her feet up in the lab. AB said she could visualise the Registrant doing this. AB said she saw the Registrant sitting on a lab stool/chair, high up, hands behind her head as if sleeping and feet on the bench. AB said she “couldn’t believe it, it was the strangest thing I have seen anyone do at work”. AB said that it sticks in her head. AB did not think the Registrant had been asleep but that it was related to her thinking that she did not have anything to do.

Privacy application

115. On 08 March 2024, the Registrant was made aware that a member of the public was wanting to join on 11 March 2024 to observe the hearing.

116. On 11 March 2024, the Registrant indicated that she would be giving oral evidence. However, before doing so she applied for the hearing to be held in private. The Registrant said that she objected to the public being aware of this hearing as she did not do what she is accused of. The Registrant was concerned that the member of the public was a student and may wish to write a report on the case. The Registrant said she would object to that.

117. Mr Micklewright opposed the application for the hearing to be in private. He submitted that the Panel should proceed in public. Mr Micklewright referred the Panel to rule 10 of the Rules and the test the Panel need to apply in its consideration of this issue. Mr Micklewright submitted that it was unclear whether the Registrant was requesting of the whole hearing (both retrospectively and prospectively) to be in private or just the Registrant’s evidence. Either way he opposed the application.

118. Mr Micklewright told the Panel that there is a strong public interest in fitness to practise hearings being held in public. He submitted that whilst the protection of private life can displace the default position of a hearing being held in public, the Registrant’s rationale for privacy does not come close to the high threshold required. He submitted that the Registrant’s request does not concern her health or suggest that a third party (such as any children of the Registrant) would be adversely effected if the circumstances of the case become public knowledge. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s request is made on the basis of avoiding embarrassment for her. He submitted that embarrassment is not sufficient reason to prevent the hearing being held in public. He stated that the Allegation has been published and on the internet for some time and that there has already been five days of evidence so far. He submitted that the request for privacy has been prompted by a member of the public wis
ing to join the hearing. Mr Micklewright said that he was not opposed to any matters concerning the health of the Registrant being heard in private.

119. The Registrant was provided with an opportunity to respond. The Registrant said that she has been professional and upholding the standards and things have come to light that she has been dismissed and been accused of various things. She said that she is now being forced to be in this position. The Registrant said that she was embarrassed for people to say everything they have said. She said it is unfair when she has been professional and hardworking and that things have been exaggerated and she did not think it should be a public show for others. She said that she could understand that if someone had endangered someone’s life, she could understand that there would be beneficial public interest in the case, but she did not understand how what she is accused of, even if found proven, would affect the public interest.

120. Mr Micklewright submitted that it still remained unclear whether the Registrant was wanting the whole or just part of the hearing so suggested that the Panel consider both.

121. The Panel heard and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor who referred to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private.’

122. The Panel accepted the submissions made by Mr Micklewright. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. The Panel did not find that any of the submissions made by the Registrant for requesting the hearing to be held in private established a compelling reason to displace the open justice principle. In particular the Panel noted that the HCPTS Practice Note specifically states that holding a hearing in private ‘is not justified merely to save the Registrant or others from embarrassment or to conceal facts, which on general grounds, it might be desirable to keep secret.’ There was no evidence before the Panel that by holding the hearing in public, the Registrant would suffer disproportionate damage. The Panel therefore did not concede to the application for any, or part, of the hearing to be held in private. The Panel concluded that the only exception was that if during the Registrant’s evidence she gives details of any health issues, these should be heard in private to protect her private life in that regard.

123. The Registrant gave oral evidence under affirmation. The Registrant had her camera on throughout her evidence.

124. At the start of the hearing the Registrant had provided a copy of an email which she said had previously been sent to the HCPC. The email (in part) included the following information:

‘Despite making progress, I encountered difficulties with my HHFT training officer, I started working on this, I set up a plan and gave it to my training officer at HHFT and I started working towards providing evidence through the guidance of the mentors and I ensure I confirm this with the training officer. However, my HHFT training officer [Colleague 2] decided to back down because I told him he has not been supportive.

Although a new training officer was appointed, who I believe I was working with a long side the external mentors but [Colleague 2] still kept being involved in this training and was suggesting I get extension even though I had about a year left to complete the portfolio. All I needed was encouragement, motivation and recourses to complete. With the help of the mentors and laboratory, 18 months should have been sufficient to complete the portfolio without getting the new version and having another 3 years to complete it after I have had the current portfolio for about that long. Not considering that I have had the specialist portfolio, seen my colleagues finish their generic portfolio and working on their Specialist portfolio as at 2021 and getting the support they needed to complete theirs. I sit down to work on my portfolio after I have done all my rostered duties and sometimes help in some ways (such as IQC), my colleagues were upset about this as it was one of the evidences given as reason for dismissal.

The lack of encouragement, motivation, and resources from the organization hindered my progress, while other colleagues received the necessary support to successfully complete their portfolios.

Harassment: The series of suspensions, reduction of competencies for trivial matters or issues that could have been easily resolved, and the imposition of tasks I did not commit are collectively regarded as harassment, obstructing the advancement of my career.’

125. At the start of the hearing the Registrant provided a written response to the Allegation which she adopted as her examination in chief. The Registrant’s written response was as follows:

‘1.a. - I never said that. Whilst he was talking. All I said was ‘Just go away’. I never swore or raised my voice at any colleague.

My statement ‘Just go away’ was due to his attitude when he came to ask for work assigned to him. He was rude when he asked as it was a command not a request. I asked him why he would ask in such tune and he kept talking and I said just go away.

1.b.- I never said this. Not even in loud or low tune. Or said any word to that effect.

2.a - I had been assigned to do microtomy task for several weeks. On this particular day, I stated I would like to be assigned other task. When assigned extra request task, there are always times between the time slot that can accommodate time for other tasks. So, on this day I stated I would like to be assigned somewhere else instead of Microtomy, my request was declined. I got upset about this and told other seniors that approached me, that I would be waiting for them to assign me other tasks. So, whilst waiting with annoyance, [Colleague 3] was embedding next to me and stated, can I give you pillow as well so you can sleep. I said I wish I could slap you, however, I can’t.

3. - Whilst working on extra request task, I needed a code to be created on WINPATH as it wasn’t present, but it was needed. I went to ask my training officer which was [Colleague 4]. I asked if she could help set this up with me. Whilst talking to her [Colleague 2] heard what I said and stated that it couldn’t be done by anybody expect the seniors and I said but [MO] (Band 4) could it and he said you will never be able to do such and I got upset, and asked [Colleague 4] if I could talk to her instead of [Colleague 2] as the question was directed at her and not [Colleague 2]. He stated that he is the one who could do it. I got upset and walked away. I said, is it until I sue you before you let me be? And I left. I never said I will make you two fired or touch [Colleague 4] repeatedly or aggressively as stated during the Trust investigation. I got upset because, since [Colleague 2] had refused to continue to be my training officer they started making it seem he is the only person I must deal with.

4. I dispute this as the allegations were false.

5. I dispute this as the allegations were false.’

126. In summary in her oral evidence the Registrant said:

• I did not say what is alleged I said to Colleague 1.

• I did not say what is alleged at particular 1b. I do not recall such a statement being made by me or anyone else in the lab. Unless someone else said it and I did not hear them.

• In relation to particular 2, I never said that. I did not have my legs on the desk. I was upset about the comment Colleague 3 made and I replied I wish I could slap you, but I can’t. I made it as a joke.

• In relation to particular 3, I did not say that. I don’t have any plans for them to get fired nor did I want them to get fired, and I didn’t have the power to fire them.

127. The Registrant was cross examined by Mr Micklewright. In summary her responses were:

• She was familiar with the HCPC Standards of Conduct and Ethics as she had been sent a copy and was aware that they are online.

• She was aware of the Trust values. She did not recall being aware of the Trust behaviour framework.

• She agreed that everyone deserves respect and compassion.

• She considered that she had always behaved in a non-aggressive, polite and respectful manner at the Trust.

• She did not consider that she had done anything rude, disrespectful or aggressive.

• She does not like being confrontational, preferring to keep quiet and walk away. She would say “just go” if anything.

• When she was interviewed for her role at the Trust, she did not envisage any issues with her training. However, as time went on at the Trust, she felt her training was not taken seriously.

• She felt she was assigned to Microtomy more than others, and felt it was unfair. She felt it was preventing her progression and professional development.

• She did not think it was an issue with the Trust not recognising her experience and registration, more an issue with the department, and the leaders in charge of assigning tasks.

• Colleague 1 was not a Biomedical Scientist when the Registrant had started, but he had then progressed to the same band. She said that she had given examples to the Trust during its investigation of all the people who did get support and trained.

• She had the mindset that she was going to be supported at some point and was working by herself with the expectation that she would finish her portfolio. She worked on it outside of office hours and had an IBMS mentor.

• She accepted that everyone needs to be on top of their task but that does not mean people have to move. She said you need to put the patient first and staff members emotional and mental health first, and that if you want a good service you need to take care of the staff.

• She did not think the lab was especially busy, she would say average compared with others in which she had worked.

• In relation to the Alleged incident with Colleague 1, she recalled that she had been on ‘extra’s’ that day and ‘decals’. She explained that the inbox monitoring was done at specific times and that it is not time pressured. When Colleague 1 approached her, it had not been the cut off time, it wasn’t like she was not checking the emails. She thought Colleague 1 had sounded rude when he spoke to her, it sounded like a command. When he spoke to her that day, he made it sound like she was not doing the task assigned to her, and she didn’t understand what he meant or why he would say such a thing to her. She was irritated by it.

• She felt people wanted to tell her how to do her work. For example, when she was put in charge of QC but then Colleague 1 would come and tell others what to do. She said she raised this with SR.

• She did not use the words Colleague 1 alleges; these are not within her vocabulary. She was not shouting at him.

• In the investigation report where she is noted to have said that she shouted at Colleague 1, that is incorrect, and she did not say that.

• In respect of particular 1b, she was unhappy that day at being rostered on Microtomy. She did raise issues with Colleague 2 about this, but she was not sure it was on this date. She thought that her being unhappy on this date related to an issue where she had wanted to audit the auto stainer and it had been agreed by someone else, but then Colleague 2 told her she could not. She felt upset by Colleague 2’s approach and felt she was on Microtomy too much. She needed to do other things for her specialist portfolio. Her juniors were getting put in the areas she wanted to be in.

• She did not shout at Colleague 2 and if he is not comfortable in his body, he should say that, and although he is big, she did not say those things to him which are alleged. She did not call him names.

• In relation to particular 2, she was on ‘extra’s’ and ‘decals’ She wanted to go elsewhere but was only offered Microtomy which she declined. She was keeping on top of the work she was assigned. She did not put her feet up on the desk. She wouldn’t do that as the desk is quite high and she is a woman and it’s not her personal office and so why would she lift her leg up.

• Colleague 3 made a comment to her about needing a pillow to sleep. This was not related to her having her feet up. Saying you wish you could slap someone is different to saying you will slap them. She was just expressing a feeling out loud.

• She did not accept her account of what happened with Colleague 3 was verbally aggressive behaviour.

• She did send two emails to FC to admit that she was aggressive, but this was not the case. The emails were sent as she got frustrated and was saying just leave me alone.

• In relation to particular 3, she recalled talking to Colleague 4 about WinPath. She was told she was too junior, but she pointed out that another member more junior than her could do it. She did not think it was reasonable of Colleague 2 to say she could not do it. It is not such a big task, not scientific or high-level grade job. She was upset as Colleague 2 said she will never ever be able to do it. That is not fair. He was treating her like she wasn’t registered. She said that she challenged Colleague 2 to say why did you say that then she walked away. She then said is it until I sue you before you let me be.

• After Colleague 2 had chipped into the conversation she had focused on Colleague 4, until Colleague 2 made the comment about her never ever being able to input a code on WinPath and then she had walked away.

• She did not tap Colleague 4 on the shoulder.

• She did not think that the words in the particular alleged against her would be appropriate things to say. But she did not say them.

• She has done countless CPD training since the alleged events relating to communication, including communicating with colleagues. She learnt about body language and how that can have a negative note.

• She agreed that appropriate communication is important to ensure the work is done efficiently, otherwise it can affect the quality of the work if there are communication problems.

128. In response to questions from the Panel, the Registrant said that staff welfare is important as for example if work is given and the staff member is not well equipped then they will not pull their weight or work as fast or efficiently as they don’t feel taken care of. They need proper training to do the task. The Registrant felt that she was not getting training and that it was being intentionally done.

129. She felt she was an easy target and people were trying to make complaints. She was upset and is upset that she is going through this.

130. She thought that maybe people wanted her to be jealous of Colleague 1 and others. When she raised training issues with the managers, she was always told it was not her time and to wait but her time never came. She did not mind other people progressing, this was about her.

131. She did not think Colleague 3, her junior, offering her a pillow was appropriate. She said that when someone acts like a child you treat them like one.

132. On 12 March 2024, Mr Micklewright and the Registrant made closing submissions.

133. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in respect of the approach to take in determining findings of facts and the burden and standard of proof. The burden of proof rests on the HCPC and it is for the HCPC to prove the Allegation. The Legal Assessor provided advice on the issues of credibility and reliability, as per the guidance in R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin). The Legal Assessor gave a cross-admissibility direction. Advice was given in relation to the Registrant being a person of good character who prior to this Allegation had no previous regulatory concerns proved against her. Finally, the Panel was referred to the HCPTS guidance on drafting fitness to practice decisions dated November 2022.

 

Decision on Facts

Particular 1a. You displayed inappropriate communication towards your colleagues. In that:
On 12 October 2018, you raised your voice at Colleague 1 stating “Shut your fricking face” or words to that effect.

134. It is not disputed by the Registrant that a conversation took place between her and Colleague 1. The Registrant’s case is that all she said was ‘just go away’ and that she never raised her voice.

135. The Panel took into account that the evidence in relation to this particular of the Allegation essentially amounts to the word of one person against another. In order to assess the quality of the evidence the Panel considered that it was important to understand the context of the working environment in which these words were allegedly said by the Registrant.

136. The Panel had before it evidence from several HCPC witnesses, as well as the Registrant’s own evidence to indicate that by 2018, the Registrant was aggrieved at her perceived training bias within the department. The Registrant said that she was frustrated and dissatisfied with doing some of the tasks allocated to her in her role, and she felt that her training and development was not progressing as quickly as she wanted. The Registrant’s evidence was that she felt she was being overlooked for opportunities and that she had seen other more junior colleagues progress and be given work in sections which she wanted to do. According to SR, such was the level of upset felt by the Registrant that the Trust had carried out an audit of potential training bias. No evidence of any training bias was found.

137. On 12 October 2018, the Registrant was working in conjunction with Colleague 1. By her own account the Registrant found Colleague 1’s attitude when he came to ask if there was any work to be assigned to him to be rude, as if he was making a command not a request. The Panel took into account that Colleague 1, like her, was making his way in his career, and by the Registrant’s evidence he had progressed from a lower non-qualified band (when she had started at the Trust), to the same band as her by the time of the alleged incident. In terms of context, the Panel found that based on her own account the Registrant was irritated by what Colleague 1 said in giving her a perceived order.

138. The Panel preferred the account of Colleague 1 over that of the Registrant in finding this particular of the Allegation proved. The Panel accepted Colleague 1’s evidence that he had made a contemporaneous note of the incident on the date of the incident. The Panel took into account that the contemporaneous note includes the date (12/10/2018) and a time (11.20). The note is detailed and sets out in speech marks the words said by the Registrant, “…Shut your fricking face”. In the contemporaneous note, Colleague 1 acknowledges that he had asked the Registrant if she would “keep on top of emails”. The Panel placed significant weight on the contemporaneously produced note of the incident, since which time Colleague 1 has remained consistent with his account, firstly during the Trust interview (which occurred less than a month later and which is included in the Panel’s bundle), secondly in his written witness statement, and thirdly in his oral account, including when he was cross examined. The Panel found Colleague 1’s evidence to be clear, measured, and consistent which added to the overall credibility. The Panel had no evidence before it to suggest that he had any reason to lie or misrepresent the facts.

137. In contrast, the Panel found the Registrant to be inconsistent in her evidence. She said that she did not raise her voice, but in the summary of investigation completed in relation to the incident, it states that ‘OO confirmed that she had shouted at [Colleague 1] but stated that [he] had shouted as well.’ The Registrant could not account for the inconsistency, simply saying that she did not say that.

138. The Panel found that it was inherently plausible that given the context of the Registrant’s more general aggravations about training coupled with her specific irritation at Colleague 1 for the perceived way in which he spoke to her, that this created a flash point. The Panel found that the Registrant did raise her voice at Colleague 1 stating, “Shut your fricking face”.

Particular 1b. You displayed inappropriate communication towards your colleagues. In that:
On 17 October 2018, you referred to Colleague 2 using a derogative term; “stupid, fat bastard” or words to that effect.

139. As with its finding at 1a, the Panel bore in mind the context of the Registrant’s general frustration and dissatisfaction with the perceived training bias within the department.

140. In order to assess the quality of the evidence the Panel considered that it was important to understand the context of events immediately preceding the time in which these words were allegedly said by the Registrant.

141. The Panel had regard to the context of the time leading up to the specific alleged incident. Based on the evidence of Colleague 2 and FH, which the Panel found to be consistent with one another, they say that the Registrant was unhappy with Colleague 2 due as a result of him providing the rota which had appointed the Registrant to do Microtomy, a task which by her own evidence she did not wish to do and felt that she had more than her fair share of. The Panel accepted that the HCPC evidence, as well as the Registrant’s own evidence, points to a difficult relationship between the Registrant and Colleague 2, who was her previous Training Officer. In cross examination, the Registrant challenged Colleague 2 suggesting that she did not think that he had recognised her qualifications and experience. In response he said that the Registrant was not as experienced as she thought she was.

142. The Registrant’s evidence was that on 17 October 2018 she was unhappy but that she did not say these words.

143. In finding this particular of the Allegation proved, the Panel preferred the evidence of FH. The Panel placed significant weight on the email from FH sent to a manager at 17:43 on 17 October 2018, the date of the incident. The Panel found that this contemporaneous email contained sufficient information to explain the events and included speech marks when stating the words that the Registrant had used, namely “stupid fat bastard.” The Panel found FH to be a reliable witness, whose oral evidence was consistent with her earlier written accounts. The Panel did not have any evidence before it to suggest that FH had any reason to lie or exaggerate her account.

144. The Panel found that the absence of evidence from Colleague 2 about what was said added to the reliability of FH’s account. FH described in her contemporaneous email that Colleague 2 “had walked away and [the Registrant] was sat at the computer by the microscope muttering that [Colleague 2] was a stupid fat bastard.” Given that Colleague 2 was walking away, and the Registrant was muttering it is entirely plausible that Colleague 2 did not hear what was said.

145. The Panel found FH and Colleague 2, to be reliable witnesses, who gave measured evidence which was consistent with their earlier accounts, and whose evidence was consistent with one another. FH gave an account in her email, as mentioned above and she provided an account at the Trust Investigation interview which took place less than a month later. Colleague 2 gave his account at the Trust Investigation interview which was held on 15 November 2018. In relying on their accounts of the immediate time leading up to the words had spoken and including the Registrant’s admission that she was upset with Colleague 2, the Panel found that it was entirely probable that the Registrant would say derogatory words about Colleague 2, particularly given the level of her animosity that existed towards him. The Registrant’s use of inappropriate communication was created by the flash point of her unhappiness with Colleague 2 that day. The Panel found that the Registrant did refer to Colleague 2 using a derogative term; “stupid, fat bastard”.

146. The Panel next considered whether its findings in relation to the Registrant using the derogative term amounted to the Registrant displaying inappropriate communication towards a colleague. The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour did amount to inappropriate communication towards a colleague. Whilst Colleague 2 did not hear the words, FH (another colleague) did, and they made her feel uncomfortable.

Particular 2. On 8 March 2019, you displayed inappropriate communication towards your colleague, in that:

You verbally issued a physical threat to Colleague 3 stating “do you want me to come over and give you a slap” or words to that effect when questioned about your duties.

147. As with its earlier findings, the Panel bore in mind the context of the Registrant’s general frustration and dissatisfaction with her perceived training bias within the department.

148. In order to assess the quality of the evidence the Panel considered that it was important to understand the context of the working environment in which these words were allegedly said by the Registrant.

149. The Panel had careful regard to the witness testimony of Colleague 3, MO, SR, and KK. In summary they all recall that on the day in question, the Registrant was sitting in the busy laboratory with her feet up on a bench with her eyes closed. AB also recalled seeing the Registrant sat in the way described although she could not be confident of the date. The Panel found the witnesses evidence on the context of what was happening in the lab at that time to be credible. The Panel was particularly struck by the impact this situation had on the witnesses, noting that KK had never seen anyone put their feet on the desk before, and he said that whilst someone is sat with their feet up, there is a specimen somewhere in the lab waiting for attention. The witnesses’ evidence is consistent of each other and is consistent with earlier accounts provided.

150. The Registrant denied that she had her feet up as described by the witnesses. However, she stated that on this day she had said that she would like to be assigned somewhere else instead of Microtomy, but that her request was declined. The Registrant stated that she had got upset about this and told other seniors that approached her that she would be waiting for them to assign her other tasks. The Registrant accepts that whilst waiting with annoyance, [Colleague 3] was embedding next to her, and Colleague 3 stated, “can I give you pillow as well so you can sleep.”. The Registrant states that in response she replied, “I said I wish I could slap you, however, I can’t.”

151. Whilst in oral evidence Colleague 3 did not recall making a comment about a pillow or blanket, in the written statement she provided for the Trust investigation (dated 29 April 2019, thus relatively contemporaneous) she states that in response to the Registrant pretending to sleep, she asked the Registrant “whether the extras role normally included going for a nap, rather than doing any actual work.” It is in response to that question, which Colleague 3 then states the Registrant replied saying “Do you want me to come over there and give you a slap.”

152. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 3 as to the exact words spoken by the Registrant. The Panel placed significant weight on Colleague 3’s (relatively contemporaneous) account being corroborated by another colleague’s account, namely MO. In her evidence, MO recalls the day in question with some detail including recall about the heating being broken hence there were blankets dotted about the lab. The Panel found Colleague 3 and MO to be measured in their evidence and willing to say if they were not able to confidently recall. The Panel found that it was inherently probable that the Registrant did say the words stated by Colleague 3 and MO, as there was a flash point for the Registrant who was already annoyed, and then was questioned about her lack of work by someone who was more junior than her. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant did say to Colleague 3, “do you want me to come over and give you a slap”.

153. The Panel next considered whether these words amounted to verbally issuing a physical threat to Colleague 3. The Panel found that they did, as a slap is physical, and the words amounted to a threat. The Panel also found that the words used did amount to inappropriate communication towards a colleague. The words were not suitable or proper within the work environment and they were contrary to the Trust values and behaviour framework. The words were disrespectful and made Colleague 3 feel threatened and uncomfortable going back to work after the incident. In her investigation statement form, Colleague 3 stated “I was very shocked that a colleague of mine would threaten to physically assault me at work”.

Particular 3. On 29 April 2021, you displayed inappropriate communication towards Colleague 2 and Colleague 4, in that:

You stated “I will make you two get fired” or words to that effect

154. To an extent, the context immediately preceding these words allegedly being said is not in dispute. The Registrant accepts that she was in the office with Colleagues 2 and 4 and that she was asking Colleague 4 about putting a code on the Winpath system. It is not disputed that whilst the Registrant and Colleague 4 were talking, Colleague 2 became involved in the conversation. The evidence of what exactly Colleague 2 specifically said to the Registrant is disputed. In this regard the Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 2, placing weight on his evidence as it was corroborated by the evidence of other colleagues in the room, namely Colleague 4, AB, and Colleague 1.

155. What is not in dispute is that as a result of what Colleague 2 said, the Registrant was upset and frustrated. The Registrant said in her evidence that it was unreasonable for Colleague 2 to have said what he said.

156. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague 2, Colleague 4, and Colleague 1, who all describe that during this encounter the Registrant tapped Colleague 4’s shoulder. The Panel heard from Colleague 4 that the Registrant forcibly tapped her right shoulder which she said she felt down to the bone. She specifically recalled this as it was at a time when due to Covid-19 individuals were required to keep their distance from one another. She said the Registrant was angry and was in her intimate space. The Panel took into account that Colleague 4’s evidence that she was tapped on the shoulder is consistent with the email she sent to a manager on 29 April 2021 at 14:42, shortly after the incident. Colleague 4’s witness statement states that the Registrant then stated, “I will make you two get fired”, directing the statement at her and Colleague 2.

157. The Registrant denied using the specific words, stating that she said, “is it until I sue you before you let me be?”.

158. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague 4 as to the actual words spoken. Whilst the email dated 29 April 2021 does not specifically mention those words, the Panel accepted Colleague 4’s oral account that this was because she had never done an email of this nature before and was unsure what she needed to include. The Panel placed weight on the evidence provided by Colleague 4 on 13 May 2021, by which time the incident was subject to a formal Trust investigation and Colleague 4 was being interviewed about it. The Panel took into account that the interview notes are relatively contemporaneous (being created two weeks after the incident) and they are consistent with the email dated 29 April 2021 sent by Colleague 4, but they provide more detail including the Registrant saying the words, “I will make you two get fired.” The Panel found Colleague 4 to be a reliable witness who was clearly recalling an event which she found stressful. The Panel had no evidence before it to suggest that Colleague 4 had any reason to lie or fabricate her evidence.

159. The Panel placed significant weight on Colleague 4’s evidence as it was consistent with independent evidence provided by AB. AB’s witness statement recalls that the Registrant shouted, “I will make you two get fired”, or words to that effect, and that the comment was directed at Colleague 2 and Colleague 4. Whilst AB’s contemporaneous email dated 29 April 2021 does not mention the words, I will make you get fired, it does mention the Registrant saying, “you wait, soon I will sue you.” When challenged about this in oral evidence, AB was clear that although she had not recorded it in her email of 29 April 2021, both the comment about suing and firing had been made by the Registrant as she was leaving the room in anger. The Panel accepted AB’s written and oral evidence, finding her to be a credible witness who had no reason to fabricate her version of events. The Panel did not find that the failure to mention the exact wording the Registrant used in relation to the threat to get her colleagues ‘fired’ in the email dated 29 April 2021 undermined AB’s evidence. The Panel accepted that that email was created in the immediate time after the incident and was not created with the benefit of specific questions being asked to elicit detailed responses. The wording about getting fired was also recalled by Colleague 2 when he was cross examined by the Registrant. She asked him when she had made that comment, and Colleague 2 replied it was when we had that discussion, in that moment in the senior’s office as the interaction was occurring.

160. The Panel found that as with the other particulars found proved, there was a flash point leading to the Registrant’s outburst. The Registrant was unhappy and angry, and the Panel found that it was inherently probable that the Registrant did say the words as alleged in such a situation.

161. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant did state I will make you two get fired and that her words were directed to Colleague 2 and Colleague 4. The Panel found that these words amounted to inappropriate communication, which was threatening and unacceptable in a professional work environment.

 

Decision on Grounds (13 March 2024)

162. Prior to Mr Micklewright addressing the Panel in relation to Misconduct, the Legal Assessor confirmed on transcript that the Registrant had been spoken to after the hearing ended yesterday. The Legal Assessor stated that she, Mr Micklewright and the Hearings Officer had met in the hearing room and the Legal Assessor had explained the procedure relating to the next stages of the hearing, that being ‘grounds’ and ‘impairment’. The Legal Assessor confirmed that it was re-iterated to the Registrant that the hearing would be commencing at 9-30am.

163. The hearing commenced at 09:37am and the Registrant was not in attendance.

164. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant breached standards 1, 2.1, 2.5 and 2.7 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, albeit he accepted that standard 2.7 relates more to online communication. He submitted that the Registrants actions breached standards 9.1 and 9.4 of the Standards of Proficiency for Biomedical Scientists (as per the 2014 Standards of Proficiency which were in place at the time of the facts found proved).

165. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s actions (in relation to the facts found) was repeated and was in the context of her continued perceived grievance of not having the training she wanted and feeling that she was being overlooked. Mr Micklewright said that her actions had not occurred as a result of her being under duress or provoked. He submitted that her actions in relation to the inappropriate communication were unwarranted and she has made no apology to her colleagues either at the time or since.

166. Mr Micklewright referred the Panel to the witness evidence which has been given during the hearing and which he submitted shows the impact the Registrant’s conduct had on her colleagues. He submitted the evidence states that various colleagues felt threatened and shocked by the Registrant’s actions, and they should not be made to feel that way. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s conduct had the risk of undermining the work of the lab and slowing the sample process down thus causing potential delay in diagnosis and treatments to patients.

167. Mr Micklewright said that if the Panel found the statutory ground of misconduct, then it should move on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. He made submissions on impairment. Whilst these submissions were made immediately after his submissions on misconduct, for the purpose of this decision those submissions are set out under the ‘Impairment’ heading below.

168. The Registrant was not present to make submissions.

169. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to Misconduct. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC (no.2) [2000] AC 311 and to the HCPC Standards. The Legal Assessor advised that there was no settled definition of misconduct, and it was for the Panel to say in the circumstances of the case whether the behaviour, if found proven, crossed the threshold properly to be categorised as misconduct. The Panel could approach the question by deciding whether an act or omission on the part of the Registrant represented a serious falling short of the standards to be expected of a HCPC registrant. However, it is important to note that not every omission or wrongdoing necessarily constitutes misconduct.

 

Panel Decision

170. The Panel at all times kept in mind the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public which includes protecting services users, protecting public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

171. The Panel took into account the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics and the Standards of Proficiency for Biomedical Scientists (dated 2014), The Panel bore in mind that a departure from the Standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct.

172. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered Biomedical Scientist. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) namely ‘2 Communicate appropriately and effectively’. In particular:

• ‘2.1 You must be polite and considerate.’

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

173. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Biomedical Scientists (dated 2014), in particular standards:

• ‘3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.’

• ‘8.2 be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinion to service users, colleagues and others.’

• ‘9.1 be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others.’

• ‘9.2 understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team.’

174. In relation to the Registrant’s inappropriate communication on 12 October 2018, in which she raised her voice at Colleague 1 stating, “Shut your fricking face”, the Panel found this to be a serious falling short of what is expected of a registered professional. The incident involved both the raising of her voice and the use of words which were unsuitable and improper within the workplace setting. The conduct was unwarranted and had a direct impact on Colleague 1. As a fellow registered professional Colleague 1 described the Registrant’s behaviour towards him on this occasion as making him feel particularly stressed, and that he ‘felt threatened by [the Registrant’s] behaviour as when she stood up and started to approach me, I was worried that the situation could have escalated further.’ Colleague 1 was also concerned that the Registrant’s conduct towards him, in not working in conjunction with him as required, would have compromised patient care. Colleague 1 stated that, ‘If staff members do not work effectively with one another, patients will face delays in the diagnosis and treatment of their conditions.’ The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour showed a failure to adhere to the professional expectation of working in partnership with colleagues for the benefit of service users. The Panel found that the Registrant had a disregard for effective and appropriate communication to her colleague. The Panel found the Registrant’s conduct to amount to misconduct.

175. In relation to the Registrant’s conduct on 17 October 2018 wherein she referred to Colleague 2 using a derogatory term, the Panel found this to be an unacceptable and significant falling short of what is expected of a registered professional. The Panel found that each of the three words the Registrant used to refer to Colleague 2, are on their own insulting and offensive and have the combined effect of being significantly abusive. Whilst Colleague 2 did not hear the words spoken, they were heard by another colleague FH, who had already witnessed the Registrant gesticulating and being verbally aggressive towards Colleague 2. FH reports that this made all the staff feel very uncomfortable. The Panel took into account that Colleague 2 was in a managerial position and to swear and insult him within earshot of professional colleagues was not only unacceptable but was also undermining of his authority. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct in acting in this way was rude and disrespectful. The Registrant clearly failed to understand the importance of maintaining high standards of conduct and communication. The Panel had regard to KK’s statement about what was expected in the circumstances and took into account that staff were expected to treat each other with respect and compassion at all times. KK was concerned that the Registrant’s conduct may have led to other members of staff believing that this was an acceptable standard of behaviour. If this was the case, the standards in the department would slip, leading to a fall in the quality of the work, which in turn would lead to significant delays for patients, who are awaiting important medical results. The Panel found that using derogative terms to describe anyone, let alone a more senior colleague, was not respectful or compassionate and agreed that such conduct could have wider impact and implications for patients. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct.

176. In relation to the Registrant’s conduct on 08 March 2019, in which she displayed inappropriate communication by verbally issuing a physical threat to Colleague 3, the Panel found this to be serious and amount to misconduct. Colleague 3 was a more junior colleague and was taken aback by this comment from the Registrant. Colleague 3 “felt threatened” and “did not feel comfortable going back to work following the incident.” She was “very shocked that a colleague…would threaten to physically assault” her in the workplace. The Panel found that the threat made by the Registrant had significant implications for Colleague 3 and that it had contributed to Colleague 3’s decision to seek employment elsewhere. The Panel found that issuing a physical threat to a more junior colleague was not just a departure from the standards expected of a registered Biomedical Scientist but was also an abuse of the Registrant’s more senior and qualified position. The Panel kept in mind the evidence that it had heard about the importance of appropriate communication between colleagues to ensure the work is done efficiently, otherwise it can affect the quality of the work and impact on the timeliness of processing patients’ samples.

177. In relation to the conduct on 29 April 2021, when the Registrant inappropriately communicated towards Colleague 2 and 4 by saying “I will make you two get fired”, the Panel found that whilst the communication did not include raising her voice, using derogative terms, or issuing a physical threat, it nonetheless amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Panel considered the context in which the Registrant issued this threat, which was directed at two, more senior, registered professionals, one of whom was her Training Officer. The conduct occurred during a time when, by her own admission, the Registrant had been angry at Colleague 2’s comments to her. The Panel found the words used to be threatening as they imply malice and to be the target of such a comment can have a serious impact. The Panel took into account Colleague 4’s evidence that the incident “significantly impacted” on her and she felt “threatened” by the Registrant’s comment. Colleague 4 did not want to work around the Registrant again as she did not know what behaviour to expect from her. Colleague 1 was also shocked by the Registrant’s behaviour during this incident and felt the Registrant had showed a clear lack of respect.

178. The Panel found that the proven facts of the Allegation all amount to the statutory ground of misconduct.

 

Decision on impairment

179. Mr Micklewright submitted the Registrant’s conduct in relation to the facts found proved is attitudinal in nature. He submitted that conduct of this nature can be remediated but that it is more challenging. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s insight and remediation are minimal, at best.

180. Mr Micklewright submitted that there was no documentary evidence before the Panel in relation to any remediation. All that the Registrant has provided is oral evidence that she has undertaken some CPD in relation to communication in which she had learned about the importance of body language and being polite. Mr Micklewright submitted that without any documentation relating to CPD, the Panel is not in a position to analyse and consider the veracity of what the Registrant states she has done.

181. Mr Micklewright drew the Panel’s attention to the reference in the bundle relating to the Registrant’s locum work in 2022. Mr Micklewright submitted that this does not assist the Panel as the author was not aware of the nature of the HCPC investigation during the Registrant’s work with them. Although he did acknowledge that in relation to any complaints about the Registrant, it is restricted to some histology quality issues.

182. In relation to insight Mr Micklewright submitted that the high point was the Registrant’s evidence that her CPD had taught her to communicate in a polite manner and an acknowledgement that if she had said the words alleged, that would have been inappropriate. Mr Micklewright submitted that there was ample evidence that the Registrant lacks insight. Firstly, she had stated in her defence that she had said to Colleague 3 that she wished she could slap her, but she can’t. He said that when asked in cross examination whether this was rude, the Registrant said no, and then was evasive about whether her comment was inappropriate suggesting she thought it is an acceptable thing to say.

183. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s evidence to the Panel focused on her perceived injustices and not her own behaviour. He submitted that the Registrant sought to blame others, rather than reflect on her own short comings. He submitted that he did not make that submission on the basis of her rejected defence. Rather that the Registrant did not say anything to indicate that her behaviour was anything other than beyond reproach. He submitted that the Registrant had never apologised for the actions even those which in part she does not dispute and gave no comment on how her conduct would have made her colleagues feel. Mr Micklewright submitted that even though the Registrant was denying the Allegation, she could have apologised for how she made her colleagues feel and still made her case. The fact that she did not do so was in his submission indicative of a lack of insight.

184. Mr Micklewright submitted that a lack of insight is also demonstrated by the Registrant’s failure to treat this final hearing process with the seriousness it warrants. He submitted that the Registrant had dipped in and out and had on occasion appeared to be at work and in a meeting. She had indicated that it was unreasonable of the HCPC to expect her to be available for a ten-day hearing. He submitted that this response by the Registrant shows a lack of insight into the case against her and into the benefits and responsibilities of being a registered professional.

185. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Panel could not be confident that the behaviour would not reoccur if the Registrant found herself in a similar situation, and that this would create a risk of harm to both colleagues and patients.

186. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was repeated, was an ongoing risk and taking into account her lack of engagement with the hearing, public confidence would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.

187. The Registrant was not present.

188. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to impairment. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to take into account that it should have regard to both the personal and public components and keep in mind the wider public interest. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ dated November 2023. The Panel was referred to the cases of, CHRE v (1) NMC & (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 [Admin], Cheatle v GMC (2009) EWHC 645 (Admin), Bolton v Law Society 1993, and PSA v HCPC + Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319.

Panel Decision

189. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal component and then from the wider public component. The Panel also had regard to whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.

190. In deciding impairment, the Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant (“Grant”). The Panel considered whether:

a. The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.

b. The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.

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

191. In relation to the first component the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct had in the past had the potential to place patients at unwarranted risk of harm. Whilst the Panel had no evidence that the Registrant’s conduct had placed patients at risk of harm, it took into account and relied on the evidence provided by KK who said, that he could not stress enough the importance of communication in the lab. This evidence was echoed by a number of the witnesses the Panel had heard from. KK said that you need to tell others what you are doing to ensure that the sample is taken properly through the workflow. It becomes a problem if you have a disjointed member of staff who is not willing to discuss things and not cooperate or work as a team member. KK’s evidence was that “every sample in the lab is a patient.” The Panel accepted that a failure to communicate appropriately in the lab has the potential to impact on the efficient and smooth running of the lab, which in turn has the potential to negatively impact on the quality and timeliness of the sample specimen process. On the basis that each specimen is a patient, any delay in processing that specimen means that a patient is left waiting for an important medical result, and possibly treatment they require.

192. The Panel considered that the findings it made in relation to the Allegation do show that the Registrant acted towards her colleagues in such a way that could, as a result of the potential knock-on effects, put patients at risk of harm. In relation to the degree of harm, the Panel had no evidence to suggest that the Registrant was seeking to intentionally cause harm, but her inappropriate conduct towards colleagues, including verbally threatening behaviour, resulted in a breakdown in trust within the wider team such that it had the potential to affect the safe and effective delivery of care to patients (in the processing of patient samples).

193. In relation to the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined she had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of behaviour so as not to bring the profession into disrepute. The inappropriate communication including the making of threats against colleagues which the Panel had found against the Registrant does bring the Biomedical Scientist profession into disrepute.

194. In finding that the Registrant did not conduct herself in such a way as to adhere to the HCPC professional standards, the Panel determined that she had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel found that the Registrant was not polite or considerate to (at least five) of her colleagues and on those occasions was not working in partnership with them for the benefit of service users. The Registrant did not demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal communication towards her colleagues or appear to understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct. Effective communication and working in partnership with colleagues are key principles and essential for Biomedical Scientist practice.

195. The Panel considered the extent to which the misconduct in this case can be, and has been, remediated by the Registrant and whether it is likely to be repeated.

196. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character such as attitudinal issue may be harder to remediate. However, the Panel did think that the Registrant’s conduct could be remediated, albeit it relates to an attitudinal concern stemming from the Registrant’s own frustrations. The misconduct in this case was not a single act, it was repeated, and it directly involved multiple colleagues. There are four incidents which span a prolonged period from 2018 to 2021, and the actions had the potential to impact on patients. Nonetheless, the Panel did consider that the misconduct found was capable of being unpicked and therefore remedied, providing that sufficient insight, reflection, and remediation could be evidenced.

197. The Registrant’s oral and written evidence provided no confidence to the Panel that the Registrant understands the seriousness of her actions, nor what was expected of her (as a registered professional) in relation to the events. The Panel found that even on the Registrant’s account, which it had rejected, she admitted to saying that she wished she could slap Colleague 3 (but that she can’t). The Registrant was not willing to concede that this was inappropriate behaviour, despite it being a comment about physically threatening a colleague. It is possible, even when denying an Allegation, for a Registrant to evidence what could (and should) have been done differently and to express remorse. However, the Panel did not find that the Registrant had expressed any remorse, either at the time or since, or provided any evidence of what could have been done differently. The Panel found that the Registrant’s evidence did not demonstrate any reflection or demonstrate a genuine understanding of the impact of her actions on others, and the profession. The only information about impact is relating to that which the Registrant perceives was a failing by the Trust to properly support her with her specialist portfolio.

198. In finding a lack of insight, the Panel also factored in the Registrant’s failure to fully engage with the regulatory process, in that she had dipped in and out of the hearing, had kept her camera off for the majority of the hearing despite being asked to turn it on, and had communicated in large parts using the chat function despite being asked to speak orally. The Registrant did not provide a full explanation to the Panel of why she was conducting the hearing in this way. During the hearing, the Registrant suggested that it was inconvenient for her to have to attend for ten days at a hearing, and that by attending for more time than she had originally planned, she was contributing more than what she thought the Panel had anticipated. The Panel found the attitude demonstrated by the Registrant as indicative of someone who had not understood the importance and seriousness of a fitness to practise hearing.

199. The Panel considered whether there was any evidence of remediation. The Registrant stated in oral evidence that she has done some CPD training on communicating with colleagues, but she provided limited detail about this and did not seek to link it to the events at the Trust. The Registrant did not provide any documentary evidence of the training or any written reflections following its completion. The Registrant suggested that she was working, which was potentially why she could not fully engage, but the Panel had no evidence of what role the Registrant is currently doing or whether it is as a Biomedical Scientist. The bundle contained a reference relating to a Biomedical Scientist locum role which the Registrant had undertaken from 28 February 2022 to 30 November 2022. Whilst the reference did not mention anything about inappropriate communication, the Panel placed little weight on it as the author had not been aware of the details of the HCPC investigation and was not aware there was an investigation until near the end of the Registrant’s contract with them. Overall, the Panel found only minimal evidence of remediation, that being the very limited evidence on the communication CPD.

200. The Panel considered whether the misconduct was likely to be repeated by the Registrant. The Panel took into account all it had read and heard about the misconduct. The facts found show that the Registrant had conducted a pattern of behaviour in the way she was communicating with colleagues. Given its finding that the Registrant has shown no insight and has only shown at best minimal remediation, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains high. The Panel found that given the lack of insight, there remains a potential for the Registrant to inappropriately communicate with colleagues again, if she found herself in a similar position whereby, she perceived she was working in an unfair and unsupportive environment. This in turn could have a detrimental impact on the effective team working within a lab and thus the potential to impact on the quality of work which in turn would impact on patient care.

201. The Panel decided that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

202. The Panel next considered whether a finding of current impairment was necessary in the public interest. The Panel was mindful that the public interest encompassed not only public protection but also the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It took into account the guidance in the ‘Grant’ case:- ‘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 proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.’

203. The Panel considered its findings in relation to misconduct. The Panel took into account that Biomedical Scientists hold privileged positions in carrying out laboratory and scientific tests to support the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. It is essential that the public can rely on Biomedical Scientists to effectively and appropriately communicate and work in partnership with colleagues for the benefit of patients. The failure of the Registrant to communicate appropriately and thereby failing to work in partnership with her colleagues, which occurred as part of her Biomedical Scientist role, is a serious and unacceptable risk in terms of confidence in the profession.

204. The Panel concluded that members of the public would be concerned if the Regulator were not to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct with a finding of current impairment on public interest grounds. The Panel considered that not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards.

205. The Panel therefore decided on the public component of impairment that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

 

Sanction

206. On 15 March 2024, before addressing the Panel on sanction, Mr Micklewright requested that the Panel consider making two corrections, in relation to his submissions. The first correction was in relation to paragraph 165, in which the Panel had noted him as saying the Registrant’s actions had not occurred as a result of her being distressed or provoked. Mr Micklewright submitted that he had not used the word distressed, he had said “under duress.” The second correction was in relation to paragraph 180 and his observations about the Registrant’s CPD. He submitted that he had also mentioned about the Registrant learning to be polite in her communication.

207. The Panel were satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to make the corrections as per Mr Micklewright’s submissions.

208. The Registrant was not present.

209. Mr Micklewright addressed the Panel on sanction with reference to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (“the Policy”) last updated March 2019. He told the Panel that he was not making submissions to advance any particular sanction that the Panel should impose. Instead, his submissions would be confined to the general principles and to draw the Panel’s attention to specific parts of the Policy.

210. In relation to mitigating factors, Mr Micklewright submitted that there is only one, that being that the Registrant has no previous regulatory findings against her.

211. In relation to aggravating factors, Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was repeated, and that there had been interventions by the Trust on a number of occasions. He submitted that further aggravating factors include the lack of insight and remediation as per the Panel’s findings.

212. Mr Mickelwright drew the Panel’s attention to paragraph 61 and 62 of the Policy which fall under the heading ‘Serious cases’. He submitted that the Panel had found standard 2.5 breached. Whilst there was no suggestion of any bullying, or discrimination as the case was not advanced in that way, the misconduct was serious, and the Panel had found it included a threat of physical assault to a more junior colleague.

213. Mr Micklewright drew the Panel’s attention to paragraph 68 of the Policy noting that this relates to ‘Abuse of professional position’ and the Panel has found that the threat to the junior colleague (Colleague 3) was also an abuse of the Registrant’s more senior and qualified position.

214. Mr Micklewright drew the Panel’s attention to the specific guidance for each available sanction in the Policy. He submitted that in relation to a striking off order there is specific reference to a failure to work in partnership and abuse of professional position, but those cover a wide variety of conduct.

The Registrant joined the hearing at this point

215. Mr Micklewright submitted that whilst no evidence of personal mitigation had been advanced, there are two things the Panel could infer:

1. The reason that has been advanced by the Registrant for not attending on all ten days was because she could not lose ten days’ worth of income. The Registrant is doing locum work via an agency in a role which requires her to be a registered Biomedical Scientist. If the Panel suspend her or strike her off, then that might have significant financial impact for her. Even the lesser sanction of conditions of practice could impact on her ability to work given that she is in a locum role.

2. There was evidence from the Registrant that in relation to the emails sent to FC in March 2019, her reason for not attending the investigation interview, among others. The Panel could consider whether that is personal mitigation that impacts on the Registrant’s actions. However, it was never said at the time that this contributed to her behaviour as opposed to her decision not to attend the investigation meeting.

216. The Registrant said that she wished to make submissions on sanction. She said that she had not done the things of which she is being accused. She said that she is the one being told that her fitness to practise is impaired, whilst the people who made the “false allegations” came together and made the allegations. The Registrant said that she did not know how this decision will help the profession and in fact it caused damage to the profession.

217. The Registrant indicated that she had not finished reading all of the Panel’s decision, although this had been provided to her the day before. She asked for further time to consider it before making submissions.

218. The Panel agreed that the Registrant could be granted further time, and this was provided in two blocks, the first for 30 minutes, the second for 15 minutes. The Panel informed the Registrant that they were limiting the time allowed to ensure fairness to all parties and taking into account the public interest in concluding the hearing today in accordance with the listing availability.

219. The Registrant made oral submissions to the Panel with her camera on. The following bullet points are a summary of her submissions:

• She did not do what is alleged, the allegations are false.

• She believes that mediation or no action would be the appropriate sanction.

• Mediation would give an opportunity for her colleagues to apologise to her for making the allegations and she could apologise for telling them that she did not want to go on Microtomy as often as they wanted her to.

• She ensures that she is always polite and considerate.

• Since she left the Trust she has worked in different places, and been exposed to other things. Politeness and considerate working in partnership other colleagues has been applied in other areas even with some colleagues at this Trust.

• As a religious person she believes that she should help win souls. This is to get people to change for themselves for the positive benefit of the community.

• She reflects on everything she does and tries to ensure her career moves forward irrespective of obstacles. She reflects on what done, how to be better, how to be a better person. Today she is a different person from yesterday. Reflection is in her own interests, her family, community, her generation and she wants to win souls. Her passion is to win souls, reflection is one key thing of being religious which is why she meditates, to give her time for reflection when she does something wrong and apologise and correct it.

• As for the misconduct reoccurring, she was not happy about her training but she never said these words and she communicated to her seniors and managers that it was important for her to be in other areas of the lab. She did this in writing and orally and said how it was affecting her and why it was important for her to finish her specialist portfolio.

• She was proposing mediation or no action because if it means that this will happen again that other people will make false allegations and cause them to lose their job, and have financial constraint, it will not benefit the profession or public as people are being taken out of job without consideration of their lives, families, or community.

• She has tried to update herself re: CPD irrespective of difficulties, tried to get help, focus on CPD and become a good Biomedical Scientist and ensuring that she is helping herself and community.

• She loves her job so much, she has given so much time to it, she believes she was pushed into becoming a locum for no good reason, she just had an issue with her specialist portfolio which cost her so much stress and delays.

• When she started at the Trust she came with so much power, strength, and positive energy. She loves the job and making a difference to help with diagnosis of patients. Even her pushing for her training was her wanting to improve the quality and offer a quality service and that is why she was pushing for her training and so she would be working at her potential. If she did not push she would just be left in Microtomy and it would not encourage people to become Biomedical Scientists. People need to progress to be beneficial to the community. Being in position where she was stagnating is not a good position.

• She wanted the Trust to listen to her and had wanted them to prioritise her as well as other colleagues, who were junior to her when she started and were then at the same level. She didn’t hate them for any reason but was just not happy about how she was being treated, in trying to finish her specialist portfolio.

• She had no intention to cause harm, that is not possible.

• She wants to make a positive change to make sure this does not happen again, and that training is not withheld, and that people do not make false allegations.

• Need to support everyone equally and if she was then she would not be in this position. If any issue was so bad she would have been offered to do something else, but she was just put in the same position with more aggravation, and more stagnation just being held back.

• In relation to work, she had her locum contract ended last week where she had been working as a Biomedical Scientist. She has to work to earn a living.

220. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system and declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its primary function at this stage is to protect the public, while deciding what, if any, sanction is proportionate, taking into account the wider public interest and the interests of the Registrant. In respect of the Panel’s finding in relation to misconduct, that the Registrant had failed to work in partnership with her colleagues, the Legal Assessor referred the Panel paragraph 61 and 62 of the Policy. In relation to the Panel’s finding in relation to Colleague 3, the Legal Assessor said the Panel may wish to consider paragraphs 67 – 68 of the Policy.

Panel’s Decision

221. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.

222. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The misconduct was repeated. The Registrant conducted a pattern of behaviour in the way she was communicating with colleagues.

• The Registrant has shown no insight and has only shown, at best, minimal remediation, and the risk of repetition remains high.

• The Registrant has not demonstrated any remorse or offered an apology for her actions.

• The Registrant’s conduct had the potential to place patients at unwarranted risk of harm. A failure to communicate appropriately in the lab has the potential to impact on the efficient and smooth running of the lab, which in turn has the potential to negatively impact on the quality and timeliness of the sample analysis process.

• The Registrant’s conduct had caused colleagues to feel threatened, and uncomfortable in their work environment.

• The Registrant had failed to work in partnership with her colleagues, instead using inappropriate communication on four occasions, including a threat of physical violence.

223. The Panel identified the following mitigating factor:

• There have been no previous regulatory matters found against the Registrant since she joined the register as a Biomedical Scientist.

224. The Panel had regard to Article 29 of the Health Professions Order 2001. It took into account that as it had concluded that the Allegation was well founded, it could in accordance with 29 (4) (a) refer the matter to Screeners for mediation or itself undertake mediation, or (b) decide that it is not appropriate to take any further action. The Panel took into account that where a case does not fall within paragraph 29 (4), it could make a caution order, a conditions of practice order, a suspension order or a striking off order.

225. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It took into account that the final sanction should be a proportionate approach and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public.

226. The Panel firstly considered referring the case to mediation. The Policy states that mediation is likely to only be appropriate in cases where the Registrant’s impairment is minor, is isolated in nature and unlikely to recur, and where the registrant has displayed sound insight and has undertaken significant remediation. The Panel had regard to its findings at paragraph 196 of its decision, noting that it had found the misconduct was not a single act, it was repeated, and it involved multiple colleagues. The Panel also had regard to its paragraph 197 wherein it had found that it had no confidence that the Registrant had understood the seriousness of her actions, that she had not demonstrated any reflection and that she had not expressed any remorse. In light of its earlier findings, the Panel did not consider this to be a minor impairment, it was not isolated in nature, and it was likely to be repeated. The Registrant had not displayed sound insight, nor has she undertaken significant remediation. For those reasons the Panel concluded that a referral to mediation would not be appropriate.

227. The Panel next considered taking no action. Given the Panel’s findings that the risk to the public remains high, and that the conduct which occurred was a serious and unacceptable risk in terms of confidence in the profession, the Panel found that taking no further action would not be appropriate.

228. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would be appropriate. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order would not be in accordance with the Policy which states: ‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which: the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature.’ The HCPC Sanctions Policy also states that a caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which there is: a low risk of repetition; the registrant has shown good insight, and the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation. The Panel considered its earlier decision on impairment and kept in mind it had not found a low risk of repetition, it had not found the Registrant to have good insight, nor did it find that she had remediated. In the circumstances the Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct was too serious for a caution and such a disposal would be contrary to the Policy.

229. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel took into account the Sanctions Guidance which notes that, ‘Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident, they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious or persistent failings. Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving: • failure to work in partnership.’

230. The Panel has found that the Registrant has not shown insight and found the attitude demonstrated by the Registrant as indicative of someone who had not understood the importance and seriousness of a fitness to practise hearing. Further, she has had serious misconduct findings made against her by the Panel, including repeated use of inappropriate communication towards colleagues and breaches of the HCPC standards including the requirement to be polite, considerate and work in partnership with colleagues for the benefit of service users. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct was not minor, rather that it was particularly serious given the potential impact it had on colleagues who felt threatened, and the potential impact it could have had on service users by impacting on the efficient running of the lab. The Panel kept in mind its decision on impairment, in that it concluded the misconduct was attitudinal in nature and at risk of being repeated given that lack of insight and remediation. The Registrant’s misconduct is not of a nature that could be mitigated by conditions of practice. What the Registrant would be required to do would be to be polite, compassionate and work in partnership with colleagues, these are fundamental tenets of the profession as already set down in the HCPC standards and would not be verifiable conditions. In any event the Panel was not confident that the Registrant would comply with them due to her previous conduct in the laboratory.

231. Taking all these factors into account the Panel found that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to address and safeguard members of the public, which includes work colleagues, from the risks of the misconduct found.

232. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states: ‘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.’

233. The Panel was mindful that it had found no insight from the Registrant and it had found a high risk of repetition. Whilst the Panel had concluded that the misconduct is capable of being remediated, it had no evidence from the Registrant to indicate that she is likely to be able to resolve or remedy her failings. In fact, in her submissions made in respect of sanction, having had the benefit of reading the Panel’s findings to date, continued to show a lack of insight. The Registrant continued to deny what had been alleged and what the Panel had found against her. She suggested that a referral to mediation would be appropriate to enable the witnesses to apologise to her for making the “false allegations” that they had made. The Registrant said that she would apologise for not wanting to work in Microtomy as often as they had wanted her to. The Registrant said that the Panel decision is the wrong decision and continued to say that the allegations against her are false. In light of the Registrant’s continued ingrained stance and her expectation that she was the one who should be apologised to, the Panel could not see any evidence to suggest any realistic prospect that the Registrant would be able to resolve or remedy her misconduct.

234. The Panel took into account that as a registered Biomedical Scientist, the Registrant was required to work in partnership with her colleagues for the benefit of services users, but on the facts found proved she had failed to do so. The Registrant had also threatened physical violence to a more junior/non-registered colleague. The Panel considered that both of these elements of the case add gravity.

235. The Panel found that the misconduct in this case was such that the requirements of public protection and the wider public interest would not be adequately served by imposing a Suspension Order.

236. The Panel, having decided a Suspension Order did not adequately protect the public nor meet the wider public interest, decided that the proportionate order was a Striking Off Order.

237. The Panel took into account the Policy and noted that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those categories of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public and the wider public interest. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s case falls into this category because of the failure to work in partnership with colleagues which had made colleagues feel threatened and uncomfortable in the workplace and which had the potential to place service users at risk of harm. Further, that the Registrant had threatened violence to a junior college, by threatening to slap her. The Registrant continues to lack insight and continues to feel she has been wronged, taking no accountability for her actions or addressing her mind to the impact they had on others and the wider profession. These factors combined with the Registrant’s apparent unwillingness to resolve matters led the Panel to conclude that any lesser sanction would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would be insufficient to protect the public.

238. The Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel had heard limited information from the Registrant about the impact an Order would have save that she was passionate about her job, and that she needed the income. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a Striking Off Order may have upon the Registrant but concluded that these considerations are significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to public protection and the wider public interest.

239. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Striking Off Order.

 

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Olubunmi Onianwa from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

137. Mr Micklewright submitted that an Interim Order is necessary in line with the findings of the Panel in relation to the Allegation because the Striking Off Order made today does not take effect until the end of the appeal period. Mr Micklewright submitted that an Interim Order is necessary on the grounds of public protection and the wider public interest, due to the serious nature of the findings made. He submitted that the appropriate order was an Interim Suspension Order and that the Interim Order would safeguard the public and the wider public interest from the risk of repetition which the Panel has found remains high. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Interim Suspension Order should be made for eighteen months to cover the appeal period.

138. The Registrant was present but with her camera off. She was asked if she wished to make any representations, but she did not respond. She then left the hearing although sent a message to say she was having issues with her IT as her battery was flat.

139. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised that the Panel should ensure that it is satisfied that the Registrant has been provided with notice of the application in relation to an Interim Order. In relation to the Interim Order application, the Panel needs to decide whether an Interim Order is necessary under Article 31, to protect the public or in the public interest or the Registrant’s own interest, because of the nature of the findings made in this case. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC Sanctions Policy which states: ‘An interim order is likely to be required in cases where: … the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’ The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel to take into account the HCPTS guidance note entitled ‘Interim orders’ dated June 2022.

Panel Decision

140. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been informed by the HCPC that at the end of this hearing the Panel could give consideration to the issue of imposing an Interim Order. Such consideration arose in the event of the Panel having determined that a Conditions of Practice, Suspension, or Strike Off Order was the appropriate and proportionate restriction. That information had been included within the letter of Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant in advance of this substantive final hearing.

141. After considering the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, the Panel decided that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public. The Panel took into account that whilst the Registrant said in her submissions that she is not currently working, she has been working in registered practice as a locum Biomedical Scientist, and therefore there is a risk that the Registrant may return to practice if an Interim Order is not immediately in place. The Panel decided that an Interim Order was necessary taking into account the need to protect the public and the public interest, for the reasons set out in the Panel’s decision above, due to the nature and seriousness of the findings of misconduct made against the Registrant and the high risk of repetition. Taking into account the Panel’s findings, including that the misconduct was attitudinal, an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to protect the public. The Panel therefore concluded that the appropriate Interim Order was one of Suspension. The Panel concluded that the appropriate length of the Interim Suspension Order would be 18 months, as an Interim Order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal, in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal within 28 days.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension 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.

The Registrant has appealed the decision therefore the Interim Suspension Order remains in place.

History of Hearings for Olubunmi Onianwa

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
04/03/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Interim Suspension