Robert P Dordan-Pike

Preliminary Matters:

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent in an email on 09 July 2024, to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register. The Panel also had regard to correspondence from the Registrant.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended) (‘the Rules’).

Proceeding in absence of the Registrant

3. Mr Anderson, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as permitted by Rule 11 of the Rules.

4. The Panel noted that, contained within documentation provided to it, the Registrant responded to the HCPC in an email dated 30 June 2024, timed at 09.54am, which stated the following:

‘…I am now in receipt of the enclosed which clearly gives too short a reply window.

I shall not be in attendance. One such humiliation at the beginning of the process was more than enough. You have clearly all the information from the various bodies to continue in absentia.

I do note that you have chosen to exclude the details sent to you in excess of a year or two ago by registered mail. As you are the Prosecutor, Judge and Jury I suppose this can do.

I have nothing further to add to what has been said over the past three years other than my lapse in person behaviour has never been a part of my 40 plus years of work. Within your records, you will note the absolutely appalling advice given to myself and possibly other registrants at the outset and early days of Cov_Sars_19. During this period, a number of patients seen by me, were in fact in greater peril from the HCPC had I taken their instructions. Those patients were seen by me because the A & E et al refused to see anyone, despite digits and limbs being threatened with loss. At least a few happy endings resulted.

(no doubt this will come forward during the Covid inquiry)

Some of the information sent to me mentions ‘a timely manner’ to resolve such cases as mine. There is something seriously wrong with the HCPC / HCPTS protocols if it is believed that this length of time is fair or reasonable. The HCPTS have had an abundance of time to end this very stressful process as stated in previous correspondence.

On the advice of external Professionals and your own helpline, I require the full names of all those in attendance at the hearing on the 9th. September 2024 and their DBS numbers. This is, as I am sure you understand, for your protection as well as mine’.

5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPC Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

6. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:

i. the Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Rules and the Registrant had been afforded with approximately two months’ notice of this hearing;

ii. the Panel noted that the Registrant, in his communications with the HCPC, had made no application to adjourn the proceedings and there was no indication from the Registrant that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing this hearing would serve no useful purpose. The Panel was also of the view, following the correspondence presented to it, that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings;

iii. the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had an opportunity to attend and/or make written representations and he had elected not to do so; and

iv. as this is a substantive hearing there is a strong public interest in ensuring that it is considered expeditiously. It is also in the Registrant’s own interest that the Allegation is heard as soon as possible.

Application to amend the Allegation:

7. Mr Anderson submitted that the HCPC sought to amend the Allegation so that it reflected the wording contained within the certificate of conviction. He submitted that the amendments were minor amendments and caused no injustice to the Registrant as the substance and nature of the Allegation remained unchanged.

8. Mr Anderson also submitted that the Panel had an inherent power to make any amendments to the Allegation and he drew the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Case Management Directions and Preliminary Hearings’ to the Panel’s attention.

9. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, and it had regard to Mr Anderson’s submissions and to the documentation provided to it.

10. The Panel concluded, after reviewing the proposed amendments to the Allegation, that it would agree to the proposed amendments for the following reasons:

i. the Registrant had not provided any objection to the proposed amendments;
ii. on the whole, the proposed amendments did not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation and were sought to properly reflect the wording adopted in the certificate of conviction. The Panel therefore considered that there was no likelihood of injustice to the Registrant.

11. Consequently, the Panel agreed to all of the proposed amendments to the Allegation and directed that it be amended.

Background:

12. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Chiropodist.

13. The Registrant was convicted at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on 03 August 2023 and sentenced at Portsmouth Crown Court on 04 September 2023 for 3 counts of Making indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child.

14. The Registrant was sentenced to a 2-year Community Order and a range of rehabilitation activity requirements as well as sexual offences act notification requirement for 5 years.

Decision on Facts:

Panel’s Approach

15. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

16. The Panel had regard to Rule 10 (1) (d) which, in terms of the evidence required to prove a conviction, states: ‘where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based’.

17. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account all of the evidence and information presented to it and contained within the hearing bundles.

18. The Panel accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1 – Found Proved

1. On 3 August 2023 you were convicted at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court of the following:

a) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child.
b) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child.
c) Make indecent photograph / pseudo-photograph of a child.

19. The Panel noted that there was no dispute that the Registrant was convicted by Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court and that the Registrant also admitted to his convictions, within his correspondence with the HCPC.

20. The Panel accepted the documentary evidence, noting the Certificate of Conviction and the sentencing remarks contained within the HCPC documentary bundle. The Panel was therefore satisfied, to the required standard, that Particular 1 was proved.

Decision on Grounds:

21. The Panel next considered the statutory grounds.

22. The Panel was satisfied that by being convicted of criminal offences the statutory ground of conviction, listed under Article 22 (1)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001, was made out.

Decision on Impairment:

23. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions.

24. The Panel was aware that a finding of impairment is a matter for the Panel’s own independent and professional judgment. The Panel took into account the relevant HCPTS Practice Notes relating to ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’ and ‘Finding that Fitness to Practise is ‘Impaired’’ and it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which had included drawing the Panels attention to CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin).

25. The Panel considered all of the evidence before it, including the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundles and the submissions made by Mr Anderson, on behalf of the HCPC.

26. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not provided any written submissions for the Panel to consider as part of this hearing. However, the Panel had regard to the correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC / HCPTS during the HCPC’s investigation of the matters raised, contained within the bundles provided to it. The Panel noted that the Registrant had in a letter addressed to the HCPC dated 04 November 2023, expressed that he felt, “shame, sorrow, and regret in equal measures” and that he had further stated ‘It needs no expounding’.

27. Mr Anderson submitted that the matters giving rise to the convictions were serious and that the Registrant had not demonstrated any insight and that only limited remediation steps had been taken and that the likelihood of repetition was therefore high. Mr Anderson further submitted that the Registrant’s actions, as found by the Crown Court, brought the profession into disrepute and that the public’s confidence in the regulatory and disciplinary processes would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.

28. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.

29. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable, now and in the future, to repeat conduct of the kind that led to his conviction. In reaching its decision the Panel also had particular regard to the issues of insight, remorse and remediation.

30. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) Mrs Justice Cox stated:

“When considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue.”

31. The Panel also had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:

• whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;
• whether it has been remedied; and
• whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

32. The Panel noted that the criminal convictions in this case concerned the making of a number of indecent images of children and, in particular, that there were 16 category A photographs, 18 category A moving image, 20 category B photographs, 5 category B moving images, 30 category C photographs with 1 category C moving image. The Panel also noted from the Crown Court Judge’s sentencing remarks that the Registrant had been “abusing this sort of thing” (referring to images of children), between 2014 and 2021, a period of approximately seven years.

33. Having regard to the Registrant’s correspondence and communications with the HCPC, the Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated limited remorse for his actions and that he had failed to demonstrate any insight whatsoever, into the impact that his actions would have had upon the vulnerable child victims concerned and/or how his actions and convictions may have impacted on the reputation of the wider profession.

34. In the Panel’s view, the convictions are for extremely serious offences and apart from the fact that the Registrant pleaded guilty before the Magistrates’ Court, and the Sentence Hearing transcript provided some mitigation on the Registrant’s behalf, the Panel was not aware of any other compelling mitigation offered on his behalf.

35. The Panel has no evidence of insight and the Registrant has demonstrated a limited expression of remorse. Whilst the Panel noted from the Crown Court Judge’s sentencing remarks that he has, as part of the criminal proceedings, engaged with the probation service to address the underlying cause for his conduct, the Panel has not been provided with any further details around this, nor has it been provided with documentary evidence to confirm the same, by the Registrant. The Panel therefore could not be satisfied that the Registrant has addressed the underlying causes of his conduct or predilections. Consequently, the Panel was also not satisfied that there did not remain a risk of repetition of the Registrant’s conduct given the number of images found on his electronic devices and the period of time during which the Registrant’s behaviour is said to have occurred (approximately seven years).

36. Accordingly, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

37. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds.

38. In relation to the public component of fitness to practise, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public policy issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:

“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

39. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s conduct falls extremely far below the required standards of his profession and is such to bring his profession into disrepute. The Registrant’s convictions were for acts which are extremely serious in nature and which were repeated over a significant period of time. The Registrant remains the subject of both a community order (imposed for two years) and a reporting restriction (imposed for five years). The Panel was also of the view that the public have to be able to trust healthcare professionals and having been convicted of such abhorrent offences, the Panel was satisfied that the public would determine that it could no longer trust or have faith in the Registrant.

40. The Panel also considered that public trust and confidence in the wider profession and the HCPC as its regulator, alongside the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.

41. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions.

Decision on Sanction:

Panel’s approach

42. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Anderson, on behalf of the HCPC.

43. The Panel also referred to the ‘Sanctions Policy’ issued by the HCPC.

44. The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also aware of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate.

45. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

46. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:

i. the Registrant’s conduct was deliberate, repeated and occurred over a prolonged period of time (approximately seven years);

ii. his conduct amounts to a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession;

iii. he has failed to engage in the regulatory process in a meaningful way; and

iv. the Panel have no evidence of the Registrant demonstrating any insight, and only limited evidence before it of remorse and/or remediation.

47. The Panel considered whether there were any mitigating factors in this case and determined that the following were applicable:

i. no previous regulatory findings and a previous unblemished career; and

ii. an early guilty plea before the criminal courts.

48. The Panel considered the option of taking no action. This is an exceptional outcome, and the Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case were not exceptional. The Panel decided that the option of taking no action was not sufficient to protect the public or uphold the public interest in this case.

49. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered the guidance in the Sanctions Policy that “A Caution Order is an appropriate sanction for cases, where the lapse is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature, there is a low risk of recurrence, the registrant has shown insight and taken appropriate remedial action”.

50. The Panel was of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the findings in this case and therefore determined that a Caution Order was not appropriate. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its Regulator, would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.

51. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct is difficult to remediate. Further, the Panel was also of the view that it would be difficult to find conditions of practice that address the Registrant’s conduct. Moreover, given that the Registrant has failed to meaningfully engage with the regulatory process, and has expressed a desire to retire from the profession, the Panel determined that a conditions of practice order was not workable, proportionate or appropriate.

52. The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy and having done so, the Panel considered that a suspension order was not the appropriate order in this case. The Registrant has not demonstrated any insight into his conduct or convictions, nor has he provided information regarding detailed remorse or his attempts to address the conduct that led to his convictions. In view of the aforementioned, the Panel had already determined that the Registrant’s conduct may be repeated. Given the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction and his lack of engagement in the proceedings, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would be undermined if a suspension order was imposed.

53. The Panel next considered a striking off order. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort. The Panel noted that the HCPC ‘Sanction Policy’ and had regard to paragraphs 79, 87- 89 and 130. In particular, the Panel noted that paragraph 89 stated the following:

“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 registrant’s and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction.”

54. The Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case are extremely serious and relate to the abuse and exploitation of children. The Panel noted that the Registrant acted in a prolonged and deliberate manner, engaging in the downloading of images over a number of years and that he has also failed to demonstrate any insight into the impact of his actions on the children concerned.

55. Further, the Registrant has also failed to engage, in any meaningful way, in the regulatory proceedings. Consequently, the Panel was of the view that these factors, when taken together, demonstrate a Registrant who lacks any insight, has demonstrated very limited remorse for his actions and one who has not shown any willingness or intention to resolve matters.

56. The Panel was therefore satisfied that a striking off order was appropriate to protect the public and the public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process and that it would also send a clear message to other professionals.

57. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the impact of an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was of the view that the public interest considerations in this case outweighed any detriment that might be caused, by the imposition of a striking off order, to the Registrant.

58. Accordingly, the Panel made an Order directing the Registrar to strike off the Registrant from the HCPC Register.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Robert P Dordan Pike from the Register, on the day this Order comes into effect.

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.

Application for an Interim Order:

Proceeding in absence:

1. Mr Anderson made an application for the hearing, in relation to the imposition of an Interim Order, to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the reasons outlined previously.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in Absence”.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been warned in the Notice of Hearing, dated 09 July 2024, that there was a real prospect that an Interim Order application would be made by HCPC, should a substantive finding be made by the Panel.

4. The Panel was therefore satisfied that it was reasonable to conclude that the Registrant’s non-attendance was voluntary and therefore a deliberate waiver of his right to attend and participate in person and determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for these reasons and those outlined previously.

Decision on an Interim Order:

5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Interim Orders”.

6. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order, for a period of 18 months, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. For the same reasons given in its determination on sanction, the Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. The Panel was of the view that to make no order in this case would be wholly inconsistent with its earlier findings. The Panel concluded that an interim order was necessary for the protection of the public and was also necessary in the public interest. The Panel therefore determined that an eighteen-month Interim Suspension Order is appropriate and proportionate pending the expiration of an appeal period.

7. 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 Robert P Dordan-Pike