Maxwell Brookes

Preliminary Matters

Hearing in private

1. Mr Jolliffe made an application for the entire hearing to be heard in private, or alternatively part of the hearing to be heard in private, to protect the Registrant’s private life. He submitted that it may not be practicable for the Panel to move repeatedly in and out of private session, given the multiple references to the Registrant’s private life.
2. Mr Barnfield submitted that it would be appropriate for the Panel to hear part of the case in private where references would be made to the Registrant’s private life, but that the remainder of the case should be heard in public.
3. In its consideration of the papers the Panel noted that although Witness 1 is anonymised to protect her identity, there might be information in the case which would enable Witness 1 to be identified. The Panel therefore invited the parties’ comments on this matter.
4. Mr Jolliffe submitted that this was a matter for the Panel’s consideration and that it may indicate that the entirety of the hearing should be heard in private.
5. Mr Barnfield submitted that Witness 1 was anonymised within the papers and this was sufficient, but it was open to the Panel to consider whether there was a risk that she might be identified from other information.
6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She reminded the Panel that there is a public interest in open justice as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private”. The Panel may exercise its discretion to hear either all or part of the hearing in private to protect the Registrant’s private life. In relation to the possibility that Witness 1 might be identified, the Panel had the discretion to decide to hear all or part of the case in private to protect her private life. In reaching its decision a relevant factor was that certain information is already in the public domain as a result of the criminal proceedings.
7. The Panel was of the view that there were two reasons to depart from the general principle that hearings should be heard in public. The first reason was that there would be references to the Registrant’s private life which should be heard in private. The second reason was that through “jig-saw identification” some of the information in the case might enable members of the public who were local to the geographical area to identify Witness 1, contrary to her right to her private life, and which may cause additional distress to her. The Panel was of the view that it would be very difficult to repeatedly move in and out of private session for these two reasons. It therefore decided that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to hear the entire case in private.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Maxwell Brookes from the Register.

Decision on Interim Order

8. Mr Barnfield made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period and allow for any appeal to be disposed of. He submitted that an interim order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. In support of his contention that those grounds are satisfied he relied on the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues.

9. Mr Jolliffe did not oppose the application.

10. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that the Panel may impose an interim order if it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should apply the principle of proportionality and impose the least restrictive order that is sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.

11. In its decision on impairment the Panel were unable to conclude that there is no risk of repetition. Consequently, the Panel concluded that an interim order is necessary for protection of members of the public. An interim order is also otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel for its substantive sanction decision.

12. The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period, but concluded that they would not provide sufficient protection for the public.

13. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

14. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An Order of that length is necessary because if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order, the final resolution of that appeal could well take 18 months. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Order the Interim Suspension Order will fall away when the time within which he could have commenced an appeal expires.

History of Hearings for Maxwell Brookes