Mr Christopher Chase

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to his registered email address on 09 August 2024 informing him that there would be a review of the Suspension Order today. An email delivery notification has been provided. The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. 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 Mr Rokad on behalf of the HCPC with reference to the skeleton argument dated 06 September 2024.

4. The Panel considered 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 hearing was for a mandatory review of the Suspension Order.

5. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing dated 09 August 2024 gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend the hearing. The Panel had sight of an email from the Registrant dated 09 August 2024 in which he stated, ‘I will not be attending, I no longer practise’. The Panel also had sight of an email from the Registrant dated 06 September 2024 in which he stated ‘I will not be attending. Please note I no longer practise and will no longer be practising in the future’.

6. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant had made no application for an adjournment or raised any objection to the hearing proceeding in his absence. The Panel noted that the substantive hearing took place in the absence of the Registrant and the Registrant had not been engaging in the regulatory process.

7. 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 as he had voluntarily absented himself and an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance

Background

8. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist.

9. The Registrant was employed as a Specialist Biomedical Scientist at St James University Hospital (the Hospital) within the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) between 15 April 1985 and 15 December 2020. The Registrant initially joined the Hospital as a Medical Laboratory Scientific Officer (MLSO) before transitioning into his role as a Specialist Biomedical Scientist.

10. The concerns were raised by the Registrant’s employer on 09 February 2021 and related to the Registrant utilising a Trust computer to view inappropriate material during work hours. The specific incident in question allegedly took place on 21 July 2020. The material viewed was alleged to include images of women in various stages of undress. This resulted in the Registrant’s dismissal on 18 December 2020.

11. Similar concerns had been raised about the Registrant previously, for which he had received a final written warning. This related to an alleged use of a Trust computer, on 23 May 2019 and 28 June 2019, to view covers of adult magazines, which depicted women in underwear.

12. It was alleged that neither the final written warning nor the dismissal were declared to the HCPC by the Registrant.

13. The substantive hearing panel found the following facts proved, 1, 2, 3(a), 3(b) and 4, determined that particulars 3(a),3(b) and 4 amounted to misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. A 12 month Suspension Order was imposed. This is a review of that order which is due to expire on 12 October 2024.

Submissions

14. Mr Rokad on behalf of the HCPC relied on the skeleton argument dated 06 September 2024 and submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public component as the Registrant has done nothing to discharge the persuasive burden.

15. Mr Rokad submitted that as the Registrant is no longer practising and has not submitted any evidence, that he remains impaired, and a further period of suspension would not affect the Registrant’s ability to practise safely or uphold public confidence in the profession. It was further submitted that the Registrant has no wish to address any of the concerns identified.

16. Mr Rokad submitted that as the Registrant is no longer working in a registered role that he has not maintained or improved his professional skills and knowledge. It was further submitted that as the Registrant has not engaged in the regulatory process that the Panel cannot be satisfied that a further period of suspension would enable the Registrant to engage and provide the necessary evidence to the Panel.

17. The HCPC submits that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and that a Striking Off Order would protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public, promote and maintain public confidence in the professions, and promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

18. The Legal Assessor advised that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Panel should consider the HCPTS Practice Notes on Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders and Fitness to Practise Impairment as well as the Sanctions Policy. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to:
- extend the period for which the order has effect;
- make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made.

19. The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired. The purpose of the review is to consider:-
• Whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and
• If so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public.

20. The key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed. The factors to be taken into account include:
• the steps which the registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;
• the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;
• the steps which the registrant has taken to maintain or improve his professional knowledge and skills; and
• whether any other fitness to practice issues have arisen.

21. The reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed”. Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a ‘persuasive burden’ on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he 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...”.

22. The decision reached must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection.

23. The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public and the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish registrants for their past acts and omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise. It does this by:
• protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public;
• promoting and maintaining public confidence in the professions it regulates;
• promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.

24. In determining fitness to practise allegations, panels must take account of two broad components: the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the registrant concerned; and the ‘public’ component: those critically important public policy issues.

25. In making proportionate decisions on sanction, panels need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the Registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public. Therefore, decisions should deal with the concerns raised, but be fair, just and reasonable. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive. Panels should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected. This means considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first, and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public.

Decision on Impairment

26. In reaching its decision today the Panel considered all the information before it. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. The Panel was aware that the persuasive burden is upon the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel had regard to the decision of the substantive panel. However, it comprehensively reviewed the matter and exercised its own judgment in reaching its decision.

27. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

28. The Panel first of all considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired looking at both the personal component and the public component.

29. With regard to the personal component the Panel noted the comments of the substantive hearing panel that the matters are remediable, however, there is no evidence that remedial action has been taken as the Registrant has not engaged in the regulatory process. The Registrant is not currently practising, has advised that he has no intention of practising in the future, and the Panel is additionally concerned that the Registrant no longer has the required knowledge and skills to practise safely. Further, the Panel noted that the Registrant has deliberately chosen not to engage in the regulatory proceedings and concluded that without evidence of insight there remains a risk of repetition.

30. In considering the public component the Panel was aware of the need to uphold proper professional standards and confidence in the regulatory process. In considering the public component the Panel found that members of the public would be concerned, and would not have confidence in the profession, or in the regulator, if the Registrant is permitted to return to unrestricted practice at present. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component also.

31. The Panel noted that the panel at the substantive hearing provided the Registrant with some guidance at paragraph 91 in relation to the matters that would assist a reviewing panel. The Registrant has not provided any evidence of insight, remediation or remorse, any CPD, or testimonials. Further, the Registrant has failed to engage in the hearing and has therefore failed to discharge the persuasive burden.

32. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public component and must go on to consider the issue of the appropriate sanction.

Decision on Sanction

33. The Panel looked at the Sanctions Policy considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first, and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public. The Panel was aware that the sanction is not a punishment for the Registrant but that it may have a punitive effect. The Panel was aware that once they 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. As the finding in the present case is one of misconduct, the entire sanction range, including striking off, is available.

34. The Panel does not seek to repeat the aggravating and mitigating features identified by the previous panel.

35. The Panel first considered mediation, taking no action or a caution order and determined that these were not appropriate due to the serious nature of the matters found proved and the risk of repetition identified. None of these options would place any actual restriction on the Registrant’s practice, and therefore would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process.

36. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to impose a sanction.

37. The Panel went on to consider a conditions of practice order and had regard to paragraphs 106-109 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel was not satisfied that a Conditions of Practice Order would be an appropriate sanction due to the lack of insight and remediation, lack of engagement by the Registrant, and the fact that he is no longer practising as a Biomedical Scientist. The Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant would comply with any conditions imposed and as the concerns are attitudinal in nature there are no conditions which are workable, and which would address the concerns.

38. The Panel next went on to consider a suspension order and referred itself to paragraphs 118 – 129 of the Sanctions Policy.

39. The Panel was concerned by the lack of insight and remorse, the lack of engagement means that the Registrant has done nothing to address the concerns identified, and the Panel has no confidence that the Registrant has any intention to do so in the future. There is no suggestion that an extension of the Suspension Order would achieve anything that could have been achieved within the last 12 months.

40. The Registrant was given an opportunity by the substantive hearing panel to re-engage, with a view to returning to the profession, which he has chosen not to take, and it would undermine the authority of the regulatory process and public confidence in the profession for a further period of suspension to be imposed. The Panel concluded that there would be no merit in extending the Suspension Order.

41. The Panel went on to consider whether a Striking Off Order would be appropriate and was mindful that it is a long-term sanction which prohibits the Registrant from practising in his profession.

42. The Registrant has advised that he will no longer be practising in the future. Due to the Registrant’s lack of insight, remediation, remorse and engagement the Panel concludes that the Registrant is unwilling to resolve matters, and that a Striking Off Order is the most appropriate order.

43. The Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order is the most proportionate order as any lesser sanction would be insufficient to ensure public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. A Striking Off Order would protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public, promote and maintain public confidence in the professions, and promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Christopher Chase from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

The Order imposed today will apply from 12 October 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 Christopher Chase