Paul Bower

Facts proved: 1 (a-i)
Facts not proved: None
Ground: Conviction
Fitness to Practise Impaired: Yes
Sanction: Striking Off Order

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to his registered email address on 10th January 2024 informing him that there would be a final hearing of the allegation commencing today. A Certificate of Service has been provided. The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep his contact details up to date with the HCPC.
2. The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on ‘Service of Documents’.

Proceeding in absence
3. The Panel considered whether it was appropriate and fair to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the representations made by Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC.
4. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that today’s application was for a final hearing.
5. The Panel had sight of an email from the Registrant dated 18 March 2024 in which the Registrant confirmed he would not be attending the hearing.
6. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing. The Registrant has made no application for an adjournment and the Panel concluded that he has voluntarily absented himself. The Panel further concluded that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment.
7. The Panel finds that the Registrant was served in accordance with the
Procedure Rules and is satisfied that good service of notice of today’s hearing has been effected. The Panel was mindful of the need to proceed expeditiously where it is appropriate to do so. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

Proceeding in Private
8. Ms Collins made an application for part of the hearing to be held in private where the Registrant’s health was to be discussed to protect the private life of the Registrant.
9. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, which states that as a general rule hearings are to be in public in accordance with the ‘open justice’ principle. However, in certain circumstances it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to take place wholly or partially in private to protect the private life of the Registrant.
10. The Panel considered the representations made and determined it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard partly in private where details of the Registrant’s health were being discussed to protect the private life of the Registrant.

Background
11. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist. The Registrant was employed by the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the 'Trust') between February 2011 and January 2021.
12. On 23 August 2021, the Registrant was convicted at Sheffield Crown Court, following guilty pleas to nine offences of online child sexual abuse and possession of indecent images. On 20 September 2021, the Registrant was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment. The Registrant has completed his prison sentence and on 21 March 2023, was released on license in the community.
13. At the time of the offences, which date between 13 August 2019 and 3 October 2019 the Registrant was employed by the Trust.
14. The convictions arise from a National Crime Agency (NCA) operation where officers set up decoy profiles of two female children on social media, said to be 12 years old, with which the Registrant began corresponding in a sexually explicit manner, sending sexual photographs, and inciting them to engage in sexual activity. At sentence, Mr Recorder Gordon stated that the Registrant had tried to disguise the activity via a virtual private network (VPN) to hide his IP address but was identified via an IP address which resolved to the Trust, where he was working at the time.
15. The police seized various electronic devices belonging to the Registrant after his arrest on 16 October 2019. Police recovered indecent images of children on three devices. There were twelve category A images, twenty category B images and 311 category C images (Sentencing Remarks).
16. The police began an investigation into the Registrant’s conduct in 2019. On 15 October 2019 the Registrant tendered his resignation effective from 20 December 2019. He was arrested on 16 October 2019. The Crown Prosecution Service authorised charges on 8 March 2021.
17. On 17 October 2019, the Trust referred the Registrant to the HCPC having been informed by the NCA that he had been arrested on suspicion of online sexual abuse offences. On 22 October 2019 the Registrant self-referred and attached a letter confirming his suspension from his employment.
18. The Registrant was convicted on 23 August 2021 at Sheffield Crown Court and sentenced as follows:=
Count 1 - Making indecent photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 – 6 months imprisonment consecutive to Count 4
Count 2 - Making indecent photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 – 2 months concurrent
Count 3 - Making indecent photographs of a child, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 – 2 months concurrent
Count 4 - Attempting to incite a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act (‘SOA’) 2003 – 30 months imprisonment,
Count 5 - Attempting to incite a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – 12 months imprisonment concurrent.
Count 6 - Attempting to communicate sexually with a child contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 15A of the Sexual offences Act 2003 – 6 months imprisonment concurrent.
Count 7 - Attempting to communicate sexually with a child contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 15A of the Sexual offences Act 2003 – 6 months imprisonment concurrent.
Count 8 - Attempting to cause a child to watch a sexual act contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – 12 months imprisonment concurrent.
Count 9 - Attempting to cause a child to watch a sexual act contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and section 12(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – 12 months imprisonment concurrent.
Total Sentence Imposed: 36 months imprisonment.
19. The Registrant is subject to an indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) and is on the Sex Offenders’ Register until further order.
20. There are no dates for the offences included in the Amended Certificate of Conviction. The charge sheet dates the offences between 13 August 2019 and 3 October 2019. The Sentencing Remarks also record that he began to engage with the online profiles on 13 August 2019.
21. The brief facts of the convictions, (as set out by Mr Recorder Gordon in the Sentencing Remarks dated 20 September 2021) are as follows:
The NCA used undercover officers to set up decoy profiles on social media, a fictional child called Holly and a fictional child called Caitlin. The Registrant, using the profile “Paul Guy 10”, began to engage with these profiles on 13 August 2019. The conversations were sexual in nature. To Holly he sent a picture of a young man he falsely claimed was him. He sent explicit pictures to her and suggested they meet up for sexual activity. He believed Holly to be 12 years old.
Counts 4, 5, 6 and 8, relate to inciting penetration of Holly’s mouth, asking for a blow job, inciting her to masturbate with directions on how to do it, with other sexual chat and sending images of what purported to be his erect penis.
Counts 7 and 9 relate to the chat with Caitlin. The Registrant sent an image of what was supposed to be his erect penis (the same image as sent to Holly). He said he was playing with himself, he said he worked at a hospital and claimed to be a nurse, the latter was not true. There was chat about kissing and penises and he sent an image of a male, claiming that was him (the same image as sent to Holly).
The Registrant had tried to disguise this activity by using a virtual private network (VPN) to hide his IP address, but he was identified through an IP address which related to his place of work, the NHS Trust at Sheffield Hallamshire Hospital, where he was working at the time as a biomedical scientist.
Counts 1, 2 and 3 reflect the indecent images of children found on the Registrant’s electronic devices following his arrest.

Evidence
22. The HCPC did not call any live evidence at the hearing and relied on the documentary evidence in the bundle of 91 pages.

Decision on Facts and Grounds
23. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC and had sight of the Case Summary dated 19 March 2024 and the written submissions dated 27 March 2024.
24. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice. The Panel was aware that the standard of proof in deciding whether the facts are proved is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the matter alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved.
25. The Panel looked at the particulars of the allegation and in reaching its decision considered whether the facts of the conviction are proved.
26. The Panel was referred to Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) which provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: “a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence,”.
27. Rule 10 (1)(d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules) provides that: "where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction... shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based."
28. The Panel had sight of the Certificate of Conviction from Sheffield Crown Court dated 12 October 2022 within the bundle which shows that the Registrant was convicted of nine offences and sentenced to a total of 36 months’ imprisonment. There were some ancillary orders also made.
29. The Panel finds that the facts are found proved in their entirety by virtue of the Certificate of Conviction and that the facts found proved amount to the statutory ground alleged, that of conviction.

Decision on Impairment
30. Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC referred to the written submissions dated 27 March 2024 and submitted that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired. It was submitted that whilst the Registrant pleaded guilty to the offences, which demonstrates some insight, the offending was so serious that an immediate custodial sentence was imposed.
31. Ms Collins submitted that there was no evidence of remediation such that the Panel could be satisfied that there is no risk of repetition. Accordingly, Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant poses a real risk to members of the public. In addition, it was submitted that the convictions are so serious that the actions are not capable of remediation.
32. Ms Collins submitted that the actions of the Registrant are in breach of Standard 9 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics ("9.1 You must make sure your conduct justifies the public's trust and confidence in you and your profession") and that the Registrant’s behaviour has fallen far below the standard expected of a registered professional.
33. Further, Ms Collins submitted that this is a case where the public would lose confidence in the regulator were the Registrant's criminal actions not marked by a finding of impairment.
34. The Panel had sight of an email from the Registrant dated 27 March 2024 in which he stated:- "I would like to thank the panel for their time today, and I am fully expecting to have my registration removed at this hearing. I can only apologise for bringing the profession into disrepute, and for the harm that I have done to my family, friends and colleagues. (REDACTED) While this does not excuse my behaviour, I hope it goes some way to explaining it. I have no intention of continuing to practise as biomedical scientist, although I am disappointed that this will no longer be an option as my work was always exemplary and was something I was proud of.
I would also like to highlight how long it has taken to reach this final hearing, something that I feel the HCPC needs to address if there are other registrants also waiting such long times for their hearings. It is an added stress having had this hang over me still, long after I have been released from prison. I note that altogether this process has taken many years.
Thank you again for your time today."

35. The Panel considered the representations made, accepted legal advice and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered both the personal and the public component and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the current time
36. The Panel was mindful that its role is "to protect the public and maintain the high standards and reputation of the profession concerned" and that conviction allegations are not about punishing a Registrant twice for the same offence. The Panel was further aware that a conviction should only lead to further action being taken against a Registrant if, as a consequence of that conviction, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is found to be impaired. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned.
37. In relation to the personal component the Panel determined that the matters found proved are possibly capable of remediation, although this would be difficult. (REDACTED)  In addition, whilst the Registrant has expressed remorse and apologised to his friends, family and colleagues, he has failed to recognise the impact of his offending on the child victims. 

38. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had pleaded guilty at the Crown Court but had failed to admit his wrongdoing at either the police station in interview or at the Magistrates Court.
39. The Panel noted that other than a brief email from the Registrant, he has not engaged in the regulatory process. The Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence of remediation by the Registrant and very limited insight has been shown into his actions or the impact on the child victims of his offending. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that there is a real risk of repetition which would place the public at risk of serious harm.
40. The Panel finds that the Registrant’s actions have breached fundamental tenets of the profession to care, be trustworthy and act with integrity. Further, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s offending behaviour was a clear breach of Standard 9 of the HCPC “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics” ("9.1 You must make sure your conduct justifies the public's trust and confidence in you and your profession"). It considered that the Registrant’s offending behaviour has fallen far below the standard expected of a registered professional.
41. The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant is currently impaired.
42. The Panel next considered the public component and looked at the critically important public policy issues.
43. The Panel is under a duty to protect service users from harm and risk of harm and it concluded that due to limited insight and remediation by the Registrant, there is a risk of repetition which places the public and service users at risk of harm.
44. The Panel finds the offences with which the Registrant was convicted to be very serious in nature. This is partly due to the categorisation of the images concerned, the volume of images involved, and the young age of the girls the Registrant believed he was messaging and to whom he sent sexually explicit messages and images. The Panel also noted the Recorder’s comments, “He sent explicit pictures to her and suggested they meet up for sexual activity. He believed Holly to be 12 years old”. In addition, the serious nature of the offending is reflected by the fact that the Registrant received a lengthy custodial sentence for his first criminal conviction and was made subject to a SHPO and Sex Offender Notification Requirements for an indefinite period. The Panel considers that the SHPO and notification requirements endorse its concerns regarding the risk of repetition.
45. The Panel finds that the convictions are very serious in nature, and that the Registrant’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered professional. The Panel considered that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would be shocked and troubled to learn that there was no finding of impairment if they were aware of the convictions which are very serious in nature and raise real concerns as to the integrity of the profession, particularly as the Registrant had attempted to disguise his IP address and utilised his Trust IP address to engage in his offending.
46. The Panel concluded that the public’s confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be significantly undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel is satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
47. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction
48. Prior to hearing representations on sanction, the Panel considered whether it would be fair and in the interests of justice to proceed to consider sanction, or whether a further opportunity should be afforded to the Registrant to make representations should he wish to do so.
49. The Notice of Hearing which was sent to the Registrant dated 10 January 2024 did not put the Registrant on notice that should the allegation be well founded, and the Panel was to impose a sanction which would remove his right to practise, that the HCPC may apply for an Interim Order. However, the Notice did state ‘You do not have to go to the hearing, but it is generally in your best interests to do so. The Committee may reach a decision which has serious consequences for you including restricting or removing your right to practise your profession’.
50. Additionally, Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC sent an email to the Registrant on 27 March 2024 at 10:02 advising him of the intention to apply for an Interim Order until any sanction comes into effect. The Registrant responded to this email at 10:33 on 27 March 2024 in which he stated, ‘I am slightly confused as to what the need for an Interim Order is when I had assumed that I would be removed from the register at the hearing?’.
51. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that once it reaches a final decision in respect of the substantive allegation any pre-existing Interim Order terminates. This would mean that the Registrant would not be subject to any practice restrictions unless an Interim Order is imposed, as a sanction order does not come into effect until either the expiry of the appeal period, or if there is an appeal, the determination of that appeal.
52. The HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’ indicates that ‘If the Registrant is absent, the HCPC will first have to make, and the Panel will have to determine, whether to proceed in the registrant’s absence with the HCPC’s application for an Interim Order and the HCPC will need to show that the registrant has been given notice that an application may be made’.
53. The Panel was aware that the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest will weigh heavily in favour of an application to proceed in absence, particularly when the Panel has made a finding of impaired fitness to practise.
54. The Panel determined that it was fair and just to proceed to determine sanction, and if appropriate, impose an Interim Order. The Panel considered that a further delay would not be in the public interest, or in the interests of the Registrant, who has already expressed concern at the time it has taken to bring this matter to a final hearing.
55. The Panel heard submissions on sanction from Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC who referred to her written submissions dated 27 March 2024 and the Panel considered again the email from the Registrant dated 27 March 2024.
56. Ms Collins confirmed that the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of sanction.
57. The Panel was referred to the Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the primary purpose of any sanction is to protect the public and that it should give appropriate weight to the wider public interest which includes the deterrent effect to other registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
58. The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction. A sanction should never be imposed with the intention of punishing a registrant against whom a finding has been made. Rather, although a sanction might have a punitive effect, it should only be imposed if required to protect the public (including future service users), to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and the regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. It being the case that a finding that an allegation is well founded does not of itself require the imposition of a sanction, the first decision to be made is whether the particular circumstances of this case requires a sanction. If a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of gravity until one that sufficiently addresses the proper sanction aims just identified is reached. Once a panel has reached a tentative view that an appropriate sanction has been identified, two further considerations should be made. One is to consider the next more severe sanction to the one identified in order to ensure that it sufficiently addresses the aims of a sanction. The other is to be satisfied that it is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.
59. The Panel reminded itself of the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the public interest and was mindful that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public from harm and to maintain public confidence in both the profession and in the regulator. The Panel recognised that sanctions can be punitive in character and effect.

60. The Panel referred to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-
• The lack of any previous fitness to practise concerns;
• The Registrant self-referred to the HCPC;
• The guilty pleas entered at the Crown Court by the Registrant. Although the Panel noted the denials in police interview and the lack of plea at the Magistrates Court;
• The apology offered by the Registrant in his email dated 27 March 2024.
61. The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-
• The limited insight shown by the Registrant into his offending behaviour and, in particular, the impact on the child victims;
• The lack of any evidence of remediation;
• The very serious nature of the offences with which the Registrant has been convicted;
• The offending not being isolated in nature, occurring over a period of time;
• There being an element of breach of trust as the Registrant utilised his employer Trust’s IP address to engage in his offending and referred to being a medical professional in his chat with an assumed child;
• The offences being predatory in nature involving very young children.

62. The Panel decided that the matters found proved are very serious as they involved young children being exploited and sexually abused. The Registrant is subject to a period of unexpired licence from his sentence and is also subject to an indefinite SHPO and notification requirements. The Panel finds that sexual offender registration is incompatible with continued registration as a healthcare professional.
63. The Panel considered paragraph 40 of the Sanctions Policy which states ‘There are some concerns which are so serious, that activities intended to remediate the concern cannot sufficiently reduce the risk to the public or public confidence in the profession. Despite the steps the registrant has taken to attempt to remediate the concerns, the panel is still likely to impose a serious sanction. These might include cases involving: …sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children’.
64. The Panel was referred by the HCPC in the written submissions to paragraph 79 of the Sanctions Policy which refers to sexual abuse of children as being serious cases. It is stated ‘Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice’.
65. The Panel noted the Sanctions Policy at paragraph 85 where it is stated ‘A panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database’.
66. The Panel further noted paragraph 89 where is it stated ‘Any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction’.
67. The Panel concluded that some restriction on the Registrant’s practice was necessary to address these very serious concerns. The Panel determined that this matter could not be concluded with either mediation, no order or a caution. It did not consider these to be appropriate sanctions due to the serious nature of the concerns raised and the requirement to protect the public from harm and to ensure that confidence in the regulatory process is maintained.
68. The Panel next considered a conditions of practice order. Due to the lack of insight, or of any evidence of remediation, and the Registrant’s lack of engagement with the regulatory process, the Panel could not be satisfied that any conditions would be complied with. Nor, did it consider that a conditions of practice order would be sufficient to address these very serious nature of the concerns identified or adequately protect the public or the public interest.
69. Further, the Panel considered paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which states ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving… sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children’.
70. The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate, would not be sufficient to mitigate the risk of the Registrant remaining in practice and would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulator.
71. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Sanctions Policy outlines that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where ‘the Registrant has insight; the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and there is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings’. As the Panel found that the Registrant lacks sufficient insight, that there is a real risk of repetition involving serious harm, and there is no evidence of remediation, the Panel considered that a suspension order is not appropriate. The convictions are too serious, there remains a risk of repetition, and the public interest would not be satisfied by the Registrant being suspended from practice.
72. The Panel went on to consider a striking off order which removes a Registrant’s name from the Register and prohibits the Registrant from practising their profession.
73. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states ‘A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving… sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children’.
74. At paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy, it states ‘A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process’.
75. Due to the level of seriousness of the offences, the Panel is satisfied that a striking off order is the only appropriate and proportionate sanction sufficient to address the risks identified and to maintain public confidence in the profession and its regulator. No lesser sanction would adequately protect the public and address the public interest concerns identified.

Order: The Registrar is directed to Strike the name of Mr Paul Bower from the Register.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

Application

1. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel should consider covering the appeal period by imposing an 18-month Interim Suspension Order on the Registrant’s registration. She submitted that such an order is necessary to protect the public and is otherwise in the public interest and that such an order was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.

Decision 

2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been informed by email dated 27 March 2024 that if this Panel found the case against him to be well founded, the HCPC will make an application to the Panel to impose an Interim Order to cover any appeal period.

4. The Panel noted that the Registrant had responded to that email and had submitted a brief statement for the Panel to consider. The Panel determined that it would be fair and in the interests of justice to consider an Interim Order application as the Registrant was on notice that such an application may be made.

5. The Panel paid careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, which offers guidance on Interim Orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. The guidance states that Registrants should be made aware of the potential for an Interim Order to be imposed on their registration after the Panel has made a substantive order and should be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of an Interim Order.

6. The Panel recognised that its power to impose an Interim Order is discretionary and that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Striking Off Order has been imposed. The Panel must take into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was mindful of its findings in relation to the Registrant’s convictions and the risk of repetition if the Registrant were able to practise without restriction.

7. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order, with immediate effect, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest to maintain confidence in this regulatory process.

8. The period of this Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.

Interim Suspension Order:

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.

History of Hearings for Paul Bower