Sarah Neita

Preliminary Matters

Privacy application

1. Ms Constantine, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the parts of hearing relating to the Registrant’s health should be conducted in private, under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (hereafter ‘the Rules’) but submitted that the remainder of the proceedings should be heard in public.

2. The Registrant agreed with the HCPC application that parts of the hearing should be conducted in private.

3. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice, which had drawn the Panel’s attention to Rule 10(1)(a) and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’.

4. The Panel determined, given the nature of the Registrant’s submissions to previous panels and having regard to the material before it regarding the Registrant’s private life and her health, that there was a need for requisite parts of the evidence pertaining to the Registrant’s health and private life, to be heard in private, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the 2003 Rules. The Panel considered that the Registrant would suffer disproportionate damage if it did not do so. In making its decision, the Panel also determined that it would be feasible to move between public and private session.

Background

5. The Registrant was employed as an Occupational Therapist at the Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) from November 2009. The Registrant was primarily responsible for working with children with co-ordination difficulties in mainstream schools and with children with severe learning and movement disorders within Special Schools. The Registrant’s role was to meet patients and their families on both a one-to-one and group basis, assess patients, and set goals and targets for the development of their coordination.

6. There were some concerns within the Trust about the Registrant’s performance, which led to a Performance Management Plan being instituted, which was satisfactorily completed in May 2011. By then, in April 2011, the Registrant had been promoted to a Band 6 role, which required, on her part, more complex clinical reasoning and assessment. It also needed her to work at an increased pace.

7. In November 2010, Child 6 had been allocated to the Registrant and she carried out an Initial Assessment in November 2010. By October 2011, the Registrant had still not written a report on this child.

8. The Registrant demonstrated further poor record keeping by a failure to complete relevant paperwork following her assessment of three other children. There were other examples of poor record keeping and failure to complete records within required timescales in June 2010, March 2011, October 2011 and January 2012. In February 2017, the Substantive Hearing panel, found all these matters, to amount to examples of lack of competence.

9. Particular 2 alleged that the Registrant had not demonstrated satisfactorily clinical practice in that, in a particular case, she had failed to follow up on her recommendation for a weighted hand-splint. In the view of the Substantive Hearing panel, this matter, which was found proved, was linked to the failures of record keeping and amounted to another example of lack of competence. That panel determined that there had been a pattern of failure on the Registrant’s part to take required action on cases in a timely manner. Although, in that panel’s stated view, health reasons had contributed to the level of the Registrant’s ability to meet the required standards, she was unable sufficiently or consistently to improve the standard of her work.

10. In March 2012, the Registrant submitted her resignation to the Trust. She took with her, on leaving, a number of documents which contained confidential information about children who had been allocated to her and their families. These papers included supervision forms, caseload forms, reports and notes of action plans. The Substantive Hearing panel determined that there was no justification for removing these documents and that the decision of the Registrant to do so amounted to disrespect of the confidentiality of service users; as such, this amounted to misconduct.

11. The Substantive Hearing panel heard the case between the 20 - 28 February 2017 and found the particulars, outlined above, proved. The Substantive Hearing panel concluded that the Registrant was impaired on both the personal and public component and imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 2 years.

12. As outlined above, the Order has been reviewed on six previous occasions (27 October 2017, 21 February 2019, 25 February 2020, 15 March 2021, 22 March 2022, 27 February 2023). At each of the review hearings, the reviewing panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and extended the Conditions of Practice Order.

13. At the last review hearing, on 27 February 2023, the reviewing panel determined the following:

The Panel were concerned that the Registrant had referred in evidence to a patient by name. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practice remained impaired with reference to the personal and the public component. The Panel were impressed by the level of commitment shown by the Registrant to the process but found that the current Conditions of Practice were not fully being complied with and the Registrant could be more proactive in managing the difficulties encountered with her supervisor.

The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence before them to be satisfied that the Registrant had adequately addressed the concerns raised. Specifically, they were not convinced that the Registrant had demonstrated full insight and could do more to demonstrate her compliance with the Conditions of Practice. In terms of remediation, the Panel found that whilst the Registrant is working towards achieving her objectives they were not fully evidenced at this time and there was no independent verification. It was therefore determined that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practice remains impaired.

In considering the public component the Panel found that members of the public would not have confidence in the profession, or in the regulator, if the Registrant is permitted to return to unrestricted practice at present when full compliance with the Conditions of Practice Order is not apparent. The Panel found that the Registrant is not currently meeting the required standards and that her fitness to practice remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

The Panel reminded themselves that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he or she has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”.
The Panel then went on to consider the appropriate sanction with reference to the Sanctions Policy and consider that a further Conditions of Practice Order is the only appropriate sanction today. The Panel acknowledged the attempts made by the Registrant to address the concerns but considered that she had not yet fully complied and that more could be done to demonstrate that she can return to unrestricted practice. The Panel has decided to extend and amend the existing order for a period of 12 months. This will allow for completion of the probationary period and should the Registrant be able to evidence compliance sooner she can of course request an early review hearing. Taking no action or a Caution Order would not be sufficient to protect the public or safeguard the public interest. A Suspension Order is not necessary and would be disproportionate.

The next reviewing panel will be assisted by the continued engagement with this review process by the Registrant, and:
a) a completed questionnaire from the Registrant’s employer confirming compliance or otherwise with Condition 2 (a) (i) and (ii);
b) Evidence that the Registrant continues to keep up to date with the appropriate CPD requirements for the profession, including reflective pieces to demonstrate insight, a personal statement showing the ways in which she has addressed Condition 2 (a) (i) and (ii), and a patient case study every three months showing how she has progressed a case from start to finish.

The Registrant should assist the Panel to ensure a prompt start of the next review hearing by submitting any documents to be relied upon by her at least 2 working days before the hearing.’

Registrant’s evidence

14. The Registrant gave oral evidence to the Panel; outlined below is a summary of the Registrant’s oral evidence to the Panel and is not a verbatim account of it.

15. During the course of her oral evidence, the Registrant stated the following:

i. the process has been extremely long and she feels that whatever she does it is not going to be “right for the HCPC”;
ii. comments were made, in Ms Constantine’s submissions, that she was being supported by her managers and/or her supervisors and in her view, there needed to be further support by a supervisor;
iii. what she has noticed, since returning to the OT profession, was that she was advised “heavily”, she would not be able to complete the Conditions of Practice, unless she returned to OT;
iv. she understands the aspects of the conditions of practice she has not met;
v. she is concerned that if the conditions of practice are put in place for another year, her managers will not “see it through”;
vi. the process is frustrating to her;
vii. she is finding that she can do her job “pretty well” although she is a little bit “slower”;
viii. she has concerns about the process adopted during each review, as at this hearing and at a previous hearing the evidence she submitted to the HCPC was not contained within the hearing bundle placed before the Panel;
ix. she feels that her managers have been “vague” in the material submitted on her behalf;
x. in early February 2024, she had provided her managers with two ‘check-lists’ and it was not until the 06 March 2024, at a meeting with her managers, she was told that her approach was “not workable”;
xi. she had asked for a UNISON member to join her during a recent meeting with her managers as they wanted to place her on an “informal performance management programme” and she felt that this was not appropriate because they had not completed the development programme devised with her;
xii. her managers are not as supportive as she would wish them to be in respect of her Conditions of Practice Order;
xiii. she wanted the Conditions of Practice Order to be completed;
xiv. her managers are acting like they have “the power to strike her off”;
xv. she does not know what her manager means (in the letter dated 22 March 2024) when she refers to her “time management” and she finds this comment to be “vague”. Although she accepts what her manager says in respect of her reduced case load;
xvi. she felt that if she stayed late, after working hours, to complete her notes this was considered to be poor timekeeping. However, she is trying to complete notes within the twenty-four hours requirement.
xvii. she does not want the letter supplied by her manager to “compound” the “issues she currently faces” with the HCPC;
xviii. she feels hurt by the process;
xix. she feels that she has addressed and “met” the Order, save for not submitting documentation every three months;
xx. as can be seen from the case study, she sees her patients, and works late, but she is committed to complete her work because she is not going to be going back to her previous ways, because she knows how that has a potential risk to patients;
xxi. she has adapted her practice;
xxii. she utilises scheduling sheets to ensure she stays on task;
xxiii. others around her have expressed surprise at how long she has been the subject of an Order;
xxiv. being on the stroke unit is much more complex for her;
xxv. she has insight into her own practice and health to be an effective OT practitioner;
xxvi. she is concerned that she will never “come off of” the Conditions of Practice;
xxvii. she has passed her probation and she has been employed as an OT;
xxviii. she does not feel that service users are at risk because of her current note keeping;
xxix. she is usually seeing about three patients;
xxx. she feels suspicious about what is and is not included within the HCPC bundles;
xxxi. she disputes what her manager states in the March 2024 letter that that she is receiving weekly supervision;
xxxii. she also partially disputed what her manager stated regarding her discharge planning for a patient;
xxxiii. she denied a number of other aspects of her manager’s letter submitted to the HCPC; and
xxxiv. in response to her managers comments that she had missed key assessments she described her position as “still learning” and stated that there are aspects within the stroke unit which she was still mastering as they were new to her and she had not received all of the training.

16. In response to questions from Ms Constantine, the Registrant accepted that the letter submitted to the HCPC (dated 22 March 2024) had been ‘signed off’ by all three of her managers. She also stated that she could only send the documentation to the HCPC when it was signed off by her managers. The Registrant disputed, when Ms Constantine put it to her, that she had not sent any information to the HCPC prior to today’s hearing (26 March 2024) and stated that she had sent her PDP to the HCPC in February 2024.

17. In response to a question from the Panel, the Registrant informed the Panel that she was unsure if her reasoning and decision making was well documented within the service users’ clinical records, in respect of her decision to delay ordering equipment for a service user and that this may explain her manager’s criticism of her outlined within the letter. However, she explained that as she works as part of a multi-disciplinary team, responsibilities for certain aspects of ordering equipment may fall to another member of the team but she had documented her reasoning for delaying ordering equipment for the service user in the ‘record of communication’ notes.

Submissions:
The submissions outlined below are a summary of the parties’ submissions to the Panel and are not a verbatim account of the submissions made.

HCPC:
18. Ms Constantine outlined the background of the case to the Panel. She also submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components and that the HCPC were inviting the Panel to extend the Conditions of Practice for a further twelve months.

19. Ms Constantine further submitted:
i. the Registrant commenced her employment at MCH in January 2022, she still works there but has been redeployed to a stroke unit in October 2023. As can be seen from a report from MCH, dated 21 November 2023, this was made a permanent role in February 2024 and backdated to November 2023;
ii. this role allowed the Registrant to work towards her PDP;
iii. a letter, dated 22 March 2024, assists the Panel in understanding that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise remains impaired. It demonstrates that she is unable to meet standard practising requirements and she is receiving clinical supervision beyond that which is expected by a Band 5 of OT;
iv. the current Conditions of Practice Order is necessary to protect the public;
v. the Registrant is now in a permanent OT role. She has support from her management in working through her PDP however, her OT work is in its infancy;
vi. continuing the Conditions of Practice Order would be appropriate and the only option before the Panel;
vii. if the Registrant was to suggest that the conditions be “lifted” – then the HCPC would say that this goes directly to her level of insight;
viii. the original concerns raised by the Substantive Hearing Panel have not been sufficiently addressed by the Registrant;
ix. a continuation of the Conditions of Practice Order is a proportionate response and one which allows the Registrant to continue to practise whilst also protecting the public; and
x. a sanction of something less than a Conditions of Practice order would not be appropriate in this case. The HCPC proposal is that a Conditions of Practice Order with conditions of supervision, is appropriate in all of the circumstances.

Registrant:

20. The Registrant did not make any further submissions to the Panel but drew the Panel’s attention to her oral evidence.

Panel approach

21. The Panel took into account the documents furnished to it by the HCPC and the Registrant. It also had regard to the evidence before it and the parties’ submissions.

22. The Panel considered the relevant Practice Note issued by the HCPTS, ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’, together with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

23. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who had reminded it that the purpose of the review is to consider the issue of current impairment of the Registrant. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel of the following:

i. the Panel could have regard to a number of factors when doing reviewing the Order. Namely, the previous panel’s findings, the extent to which the Registrant has engaged with the regulatory process, the scope and level of insight and the risk of repetition;
ii. the Panel should have regard to the relevant Practice Note issued by the HCPTS ‘Fitness to Practise ‘Impairment’’, together with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for OT’s in England;
iii. the Panel could take account of a range of issues, when considering current impairment, which in essence comprises the two components:
a) the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant; and
b) the ‘public’ component: the need the protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.
iv. it is only if the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, that the Panel should go on to consider sanction by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’; and
v. the principle of proportionality required the Panel to consider the Registrant’s interests to be balanced against the interests of the public.

Decision

24. In making its decision, the Panel had regard to both the personal and public elements of impairment. The Panel also had regard to the previous panel’s determinations. However, the Panel conducted a comprehensive review of all the material and oral evidence before it today which included the following:
i. HCPC hearing bundle – 144 pages;
ii. Medway Community Healthcare (‘MCH’) Letter dated 22 March 2024;
iii. Registrant’s submitted documents titled:
a. ‘HCPC bundle index’;
b. ‘HCPC Emails and letters’;
c. ‘HCPC evidence letter’;
d. ‘COP’s checklist (1)’;
e. ‘COP’s checklist (2)’;
f. ‘Endeavour outcome of Trial Period letter from Sarah Neita’;
g. ‘Evidence for Sarah revised 2024’;
h. ‘First CVA Pt HCPC Harmony House’;
i. ‘HCPC’s Investigation Bundle 2014’;
j. ‘HH PDP 2023’;
k. ‘NPS Testimonial Sept 2023’; and
l. ‘Probationary Letter SN 17.03.2023’.

25. The Panel noted that since the last review hearing, the Registrant had secured a permanent OT role and the Panel considered that this progress on the Registrant’s part demonstrated both a commitment to the OT profession but also to complying with the Conditions of Practice imposed.

26. However, notwithstanding this progress by the Registrant, when reviewing all of the material presented to it, the Panel had regard to the letter dated 22 March 2024, from MCH, and noted that it had been signed by three of her line managers and stated the following:
“I have been asked to write a letter to support the evidence which has been supplied by Sarah Neita in preparation for her hearing on 26th March 2024. I give permission for Sarah to share the case study evidence she has collated using a patient who was an inpatient within the stroke service. This case study information is only to be shared with the HCPC for the purposes of the hearing.
Background: Sarah started her employment with MCH in Jan 2022 where she was employed to work as a band 5 OT on an intermediate care in patient unit. Sarah continued to work in this role until Sept 2023 where she was redeployed to a stroke rehab unit still within MCH due to the intermediate care service undergoing a tender process. Sarah has been working as a band 5 OT on a stroke rehab unit since Oct 2023. Sarah has a development plan which she is working through which highlights her learning needs within the area of stroke as well as addressing some areas around her performance, such as expectations around caseload management, how many patients she should treat per day, and using systems effectively such as systems for managing annual leave. Sarah has asked me to write supporting the following sanctions: (i) Completing written assessments and clinical records within the required timeframe; (ii) Progressing cases by following up on recommendations for intervention.
(i) Completing written assessments and clinical records within the required timeframe; The evidence produced by Sarah in the case study does evidence that she is writing clinical notes within a 24-hour period. However, and this is not evidenced in this case study, Sarah is often staying late to write notes. Since working on the stroke rehab unit Sarah has managed a caseload of 3 (maximum) patients and these have also been intermediate care patients with a similar presentation to those she treated on the intermediate care unit. Sarah struggles with time management. There is a realistic expectation that with Sarah’s current workload she should be able to complete the clinical records within her contracted hours. There is an expectation that a band 5 OT working similar part time hours would manage a caseload of approx. 6 patients (with varying levels of need). In the main whilst working on the stroke unit Sarah has only been able to manage 3 patients. Sarah is receiving weekly clinical supervision to support with caseload management and goal setting. Again, this is above the expected level of support for a band 5 OT. There have been 2 occasions where Sarah has failed to document in the clinical records (one regarding equipment and one regarding discharge planning). Sarah needed prompting to complete this documentation.
ii) Progressing cases by following up on recommendations for intervention. The evidence provided by Sarah shows an element of her progressing patients – in this case study Sarah did complete the essential assessments such as initial assessment, ADLs, home environment and a family meeting. Sarah also shows that she frequently liaised with family members to keep them updated. However, as part of her development plan and supervision Sarah’s supervisors have collated case study evidence which shows that there are often periods of time when she does not treat patients on her caseload. With one patient, there was a period of 3 months with no reviews despite having an ongoing goal for the patient. She has also missed key assessments and therapy sessions and has not handed these over to other staff to complete. There are also examples when she has not actioned plans in a timely manner – such as completing an access visit and not ordering equipment within a suitable time frame. These examples have been discussed and shared with Sarah in supervision sessions.
We are currently waiting for the appointment and subsequent report. Sarah is aware that the team have some concerns about her performance in this role. We have had a meeting where we discussed the case study evidence. We have signed Sarah’s CoP and her Development Plan as there are aspects of both which she has achieved. However as documented in this letter there are still concerns around her practice.’

27. In this Panel’s view, the Registrant’s identified failings are remediable. However, having regard to the material presented to it and having regard to the Registrant’s oral evidence, the Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated a lack of insight into her identified failings and the impact of them upon others, including colleagues and service users. In forming this view, the Panel noted that during the course of her oral evidence to the Panel she sought to apportion blame to others and also failed to take responsibility for those matters within her own control. The Registrant also sought to apportion significant blame to her employers, for what she claimed was “a lack of support” in her attempts to comply with the Conditions of Practice Order. Further, the Registrant also sought to qualify the concerns outlined by her managers, in MCH’s letter dated 22 March 2024, by blaming others.

28. The Panel also considered, as the previous reviewing panel did, that the Registrant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to it that she had adequately addressed the concerns raised. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the persuasive burden lay with the Registrant and she had not provided any documentation to the HCPC in compliance with the Conditions of Practice Order until the morning of the hearing. The Panel also considered that the evidence which had been provided, was lacking. Furthermore, the Panel also noted that in addition to not complying with the Conditions of Practice Order by providing documents to the HCPC during the course of the twelve-month Order, the Registrant also failed to comply with the previous reviewing panel’s request that all documentation be provided to the HCPC at least two days prior to the review hearing.

29. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that she had remedied her failings, nor had she provided the information in a timely fashion when it would have been abundantly clear to her that a review was forthcoming.

30. Further, in light of the matters outlined in MCH’s letter, the Panel was not satisfied that there was not a real risk of repetition of the failings and risks identified by the Substantive Hearing Panel.

31. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired on the personal component.

32. The Panel next considered the public component. The Panel considered in view of the fact that it had determined that a risk of harm and a risk of repetition remained, that members of the public would not have confidence in the OT profession, or the HCPC as its regulator, if the Registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice at the present time.

33. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

34. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired the Panel next considered what sanction to impose. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgment and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, it reminded itself that any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order must be the least restrictive order that would protect the public interest, including public protection. The Panel considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity.

35. The Panel considered the option of a Caution Order however, decided that it would not provide adequate protection for the public.

36. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy and noted that it stated that a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate in the following circumstances:
A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
i. the registrant has insight;
ii. the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
iii. there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
iv. appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
v. the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
vi. a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and
vii. the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice.

37. The Panel considered that ii) to vii), above, applied in this case. The Panel also noted the Registrant’s engagement throughout the regulatory proceedings and that she had taken some steps towards demonstrating some insight and remedying her failings. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had only recently been able to secure employment and comply with the conditions of practice imposed. Consequently, having regard to all of the circumstances of this case, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant should be afforded with a further opportunity to demonstrate that she is capable of safe, effective and independent practice and provided with a further opportunity to satisfy a future panel that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired.

38. The Panel considered a Suspension Order but determined that this would be disproportionate at this time.

39. The Panel considered that a further 12-month Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate, as it would provide the Registrant with sufficient time to demonstrate that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel also considered that a Conditions of Practice Order was the proportionate order to impose as it balanced the need to protect the public and the public interest, with the Registrant’s interests and permit her to continue working albeit in a restricted manner.

40. The Panel also considered that a reviewing panel would be assisted by the Registrant’s future engagement, in addition to the provision of the following documentation no less than 7 working days before the start of a future reviewing hearing:
i. references from the Registrant’s supervisors and/or managers addressing her progress against her Conditions of Practice and in particular Condition 2;
ii. a reflective piece to demonstrate the Registrant’s insight into her failings and the impact on service users and colleagues;
iii. minutes from supervision sessions and/or evidence of supervision sessions with her supervisors and/or managers (for example, supervision notes available to the Registrant); and
iv. evidence of any further steps taken to maintain her skills, including evidence of training and Continuing Professional Development (PDP).

ORDER: The Panel directs the Registrar to vary and extend the current Conditions of Practice Order against the registration of Ms Sarah Neita for a further period of 12 months from the date of expiry of the current order. The Conditions are as follows:

1. If you work as an Occupational Therapist, you must place yourself and remain under, the supervision of a supervisor who must be a healthcare professional registered with any of the healthcare regulators and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within fourteen days of commencing such work. For the avoidance of doubt, this condition envisages the level of supervision to be that which would be normal for the Occupational Therapist level at which the Registrant is employed.

2. If you engage in professional work as an Occupational Therapist you must:

a) Work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan designed to address the following areas of your practice:

(i) Completing written assessments and clinical records within the required timeframe;
(ii) Progressing cases by following up on recommendations for intervention.

b) Within three months of commencing work as an Occupational Therapist you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

c) Following the submission of your Personal Development Plan in accordance with (b) above, you must then provide, every six months, an updated Progress Report on your Personal Development to the HCPC, to be endorsed by your supervisor.

3) You must promptly inform the HCPC if you cease to be employed by
your current employer or take up any other or further employment.

4) You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings
taken against you by your employer.

5) You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:
a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to
undertake professional work
b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and
c) any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

6) You will be responsible for meeting any and all costs associated with complying with these conditions.

The Order imposed today will apply from 28 March 2024.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 28 March 2025.

History of Hearings for Sarah Neita