Mr Grzegorz Skierka

Facts proved: 1
Facts not proved: n/a
Grounds: Misconduct

That panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired and a Suspension Order for a period of twelve months was imposed as a sanction.

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that service of the notice of today’s hearing had been effected in accordance with the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”). It took into account that the Notice of Hearing had been sent by the HCPC to the Registrant’s registered email address on 16 October 2024 at 17.34.31pm. Further, the Panel was provided with confirmation from Microsoft Outlook, sent the same day at 17.34.38pm, that: “Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server.”

2. In addition, the Panel noted that, on 14 November 2024, the Registrant had replied to emails sent on 8 and 14 November 2024 by today’s Hearings Officer enquiring whether he would be attending today’s hearing. In his email, the Registrant stated:
“I'd like to withdraw myself from the hearing. Whatever decision should be reached by the Tribunal it will not affect my current situation. Also, as you can see, I am not longer a HCPC registrant due to inability to pay for registration, work (due to health and housing situation) or train (due to same reasons).
I'd like to apologise for any unexpected problems and unnecessary time sacrifice this brings and I simply don't want to waste your time anymore.
Please accept my highest regards and esteem.”

3. The Panel therefore was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been delivered to the Registrant’s email address on the register in accordance with the Rules and that he had acknowledged receipt thereof.

Proceeding in absence

4. The Registrant did not appear nor was he represented.

5. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Khorassani applied for the hearing to be conducted in the absence of the Registrant under Rule 11 of the Rules, on the basis that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant and therefore that the Registrant had been notified of the time and date of the hearing at his registered email address. In addition, the Panel was to note that the Registrant, in his email dated 14 November 2024, had clearly indicated that he would not attend today’s hearing.

6. Accordingly, Ms Khorassani submitted that all reasonable steps had been taken by the HCPC to bring this matter to the Registrant’s attention. The Registrant had responded to an email sent the day before the hearing by the Hearings Officer, which indicated that he had no intention of attending today’s hearing.

7. Ms Khorassani asked the Panel to note that, since the previous hearing, the Registrant had not otherwise engaged with the HCPC. The Registrant had not asked for an adjournment and Ms Khorassani submitted that an adjournment would not be likely to result in the Registrant’s attendance on a later date. Accordingly, she submitted that it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed expeditiously, bearing in mind, not only that this was a mandatory review, but also that the order would lapse on 20 December 2024 if there was any further delay.

8. Having considered the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and the advice of the Legal Assessor on the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, the Panel determined that there was a burden upon a registrant to keep his contact details updated and to engage with their regulator. The Panel therefore accepted that the HCPC had “taken all reasonable steps” to serve the Notice of Hearing upon the Registrant.

9. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been unequivocal in stating that he did not intend to attend the hearing and in particular, has not applied for an adjournment. Further, the Panel noted that the registrant had not otherwise engaged with the regulatory process since the previous substantive hearing in November 2023. The Panel therefore concluded that he had voluntarily absented himself and had waived his right to appear. The Panel also reminded itself of the overriding public interest in dealing with matters in a timely manner and that this was a mandatory review. In balancing the Registrant’s interests and the public interest, the Panel decided that the matter should be heard in the absence of the Registrant.

Application for the hearing to be held in private

10. Ms Khorassani made an application for the hearing to be held in private to protect the private life of the Registrant as matters relating to the health of the Registrant were likely to be referred to.

11. 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. 12. The Panel considered the representations made and determined it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard in private whenever details of the Registrant’s health were to be referred to.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to extend the current Suspension Order on the registration of Mr Grzegorz Przemyslaw Skierka for a period of an additional six months from the date of the expiry of the current order.

This order comes into effect at the end of 20 December 2024

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 Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

History of Hearings for Mr Grzegorz Skierka