Kevel Gumbs

Preliminary Matters
Admissions
1. At the start of the hearing, the allegation was read to the Registrant, who admitted Particulars 1 to 4.2. Through the Chair, the Panel asked the Registrant a number of questions to ensure that he understood Particular 4 and what he was admitting to by an admission to dishonesty.
3. The Panel also heard the advice of the legal assessor, which it has followed in its decision set out below.
4. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Admissions and dated October 2024. The Panel acknowledged that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended), (the Rules) do not provide for matters to be proved by admission. However, the Panel observed that the rules do not prohibit this, and the above practice note provides that

“10. Subject to the need for the Panel to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings, they can treat an admission to an alleged fact as proof of that fact without the HCPC needing to prove it by calling witnesses and/or producing documentary evidence.” And
“23. If the Panel is satisfied that they can properly accept the admission, having received advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel Chair will announce and record the admitted Particulars of allegation proven by virtue of that admission, without the need for further evidence to be adduced by the HCPC to prove that fact.”

5. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant is not represented but it had regard to the written document he had submitted in advance of the hearing and his answers to questions and was satisfied that he fully understood what he was admitting to.
6. Accordingly, the Panel accepted the Registrant’s admissions and announced that Particulars 1 to 4 were proved by reason of the Registrant ’s admissions.

Background
7. The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist who qualified in 2012.
8. Between 22 June 2020 and 10 February 2021, the Registrant was employed as an Occupational Therapist at Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council (“RBKC”). He was not employed directly by the RBKC but was employed as a locum, via an agency, Sanctuary Personnel (“Sanctuary”). A company called Comensura, liaised between Sanctuary and RBKC, for whom they managed all temporary work engagement contracts.
9. The Registrant ’s role can be summarised as follows. The Registrant was an on duty Occupational Therapist whose role involved screening referrals as they came through the system, and assessing their suitability. He would also be responsible for answering the phone and managing the email inbox. As part of that role, if there was anything that came in that was urgent on that day, he would be responsible for visiting the service user and stabilising the service user if necessary. Other actions might include contacting service users and contacting the people who sent the referrals. He also would have had a small case load. For those service users he would visit and carry out full occupational therapy assessments, making a recommendation and providing equipment if necessary. He would also write an assessment report after visits which would be submitted to his line manager for approval and sign off.
10. The Registrant was engaged to work full-time, that is to say 36 hours per week Monday to Friday 09:00 to 17:00 hours. He was initially contracted to work from June 2020 to 30 October 2020. His contract was extended from 1 November 2020 until it was terminated on 10 February 2021.
11. The Registrant kept a time sheet for each day and submitted the figures for the hours he had worked to Comensura each week.
12. On 28 September 2020, the Registrant entered into a similar arrangement with the London Borough of Brent (the Council) as a locum Occupational Therapist. His main responsibility was to undertake home visits and assess those who had occupational therapy needs. He would assess if they needed equipment or whether any adjustments needed to be made to their homes.
13. Under these arrangements, the Council dealt with Comensura and the agency through which the Registrant contracted with them was Kinsale Group Limited, a company of which the Registrant was the sole director. The Registrant ’s working hours were again 09.00 to 17.00 Monday to Friday.
14. The Registrant did not tell his managers at either RBKC or the Council that he was working for both local authorities. Nevertheless, he submitted timesheets and invoices to Comensura for full-time work at both local authorities for 15 weeks and three days. The number of hours duplicated exceeded 550.
15. The Registrant ’s conduct came to light because the person at Comensura who was responsible for time sheets and invoices, noticed that the Registrant was claiming the same hours for two different local authorities. Both local authorities were notified in February 2021, he was dismissed from both positions and the Registrant ’s line manager at RBKC reported the Registrant to the HCPC on 12 February 2021.
Decision on Grounds on Grounds and impairment
16. Having found Particulars 1 to 4 proved by reason of the Registrant’s admissions, the Panel went on to decide whether the matters found proved amounted to serious misconduct and if so whether the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired.

Submissions and evidence
17. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack, who drew the Panel’s attention to the relevant law and guidance, to which the Panel refers below. He submitted that this stage is itself a two stage process and the Panel should first consider whether the matters found proved at 1 to 4 amount to serious misconduct. It should then consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of those matters.
18. He submitted that the matters proved amounted to serious misconduct because they arose from a course of repeated dishonesty for financial gain and in breach of the following HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (the Standards):
Standard 9 Be honest and trustworthy
Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
Standard 9.4: You must declare issues that might create conflicts of interest and make sure that they do not influence your judgement.
19. Turning to impairment, Mr Slack, again set out the relevant law and guidance to which the Panel refers below. He submitted that the Registrant ’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the matters set out above, under both the personal and public components of impairment.
20. He submitted that the Registrant had brought the profession of Occupational Therapy into disrepute and was liable to do so in the future, had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession and was liable to do so in the future, had been dishonest in the past and was liable to be so in the future.
21. Mr Slack submitted that the Panel should find the Registrant ’s fitness to practise impaired both because of the risk of repetition of his misconduct in the future and in the wider public interest of maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards of conduct.
22. The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel. He told the Panel of his working background. He told the Panel that he had worked for local authorities on a locum basis since qualifying in 2012. Before the events giving rise to the allegation, he had worked for a local authority putting in place a project that had helped the local authority save a great deal of money and he had received an award for it. He then set up an agency to train care workers however he ran into difficulties when the company that was his biggest client went into liquidation.
23. He returned to occupational therapy work and described how he had started work first at RBKC and then at the Council.
24. He told the Panel that he was the only one in his family and immediate circle with a degree. He had worked hard and one decision had thrown it all away. He was ashamed for what he had done. He described how his wife and children relied upon him, and he was now unsure how he could provide for his family.
25. He understood that what he had done was wrong because he had been trusted to do a job and had taken advantage of an opportunity. He explained that those were desperate times and he was in debt and unable to pay his rent.
26. He told the Panel that he was aware of the effect on others, including his manager who had trusted him and respected him as an Occupational Therapist. He said that he had destroyed that working relationship with somebody who had trusted him.
27. He also understood that he had betrayed the trust of the Council who had trusted him to do a job. He said he understood that what he had done was bad for the reputation of Occupational Therapy as a whole.
28. He told the Panel that since February 2021 he had continued to work as a locum for a number of local authorities as well as in private practise via agency (not his own). He assured the Panel that all his employers were aware of the proceedings that he faced.
29. He told the Panel that he would not do anything like this again because he knew that it was the wrong thing to do and he must deal with financial difficulties without compromising his professional position. He said he understood why people did not trust him, but he had been rehabilitated by working for four or five years and not doing anything wrong since his misconduct. He hoped that people would see that as a testament to his rehabilitation.
30. In answer to questions he said that he had always worked through a third-party agency since 2021 and he understood that the Duty of Candour meant that he had to be open and honest. He said that he had apologised to his former manager and to his family and written a reflective piece which the Panel had seen. He had not been asked to repay any of the money he had earned through his misconduct and had not offered to do so.
31. He said that he had done some CPD and was sure that some of it related to integrity although he was unable to give any examples of what he had done. He also recognised that he may have put service users at risk by doing two jobs because he would have been in an impossible situation if two emergencies had risen at the same time. He said that at the time he had not thought of this.
32. He said that he was now taking a break from work since the end of March, as he had made enough money via his private service users to do so. He assured the Panel that he would definitely not do anything like this again. He concluded by saying that he hoped that the Panel would conclude that he would not do anything like this again.
33. The Panel received the advice of the Legal Assessor which it followed in its decision set out below.

The Panel’s approach to misconduct
34. The Panel reminded itself that this stage of the proceedings is itself a two-stage process. The Panel must first decide whether the matters found proved amount to serious misconduct and if it concludes that they do, it must go on to consider whether the Registrant 's fitness to practise is currently impaired.
35. The Panel reminded itself that both misconduct and impairment are matters for the Panel’s independent judgment.
36. Turning to the question of misconduct the Panel reminded itself of the case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 311, para 38 in which the court stated that ‘misconduct’ was:

“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed…in the Particular circumstances…And such falling short must be serious.”

37. In deciding whether misconduct is serious, the Panel followed the approach set out in Solicitors Regulation Authority v. Day and others [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin) which gave the following guidance to Panels: “We do not, we emphasise, say that there is a set standard of seriousness or culpability for the purposes of assessing breaches of the core principles in tribunal proceedings. It is a question of fact and degree in each case. Whether the default in question is sufficiently serious and culpable thus will depend on the Particular core principle in issue and on the evaluation of the circumstances of the Particular case as applied to that principle.”
38. The Panel also had regard to the Standards as set out in the Panel’s decision.

The Panel’s approach to impairment
39. Turning to the question of whether the Registrant ’s fitness to practise is currently impaired the Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on impairment dated August 2025.
40. It observed that the Practice Note reminds Panels that Fitness to practise is not defined in the Health Professions Order 2001, but it is generally accepted to mean that a Registrant has the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively.
41. The Panel adopted the following approach. The Panel had regard to the over-arching objective of protecting the public, which involves the pursuit of the following objectives:

• to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public;
• to promote and maintain public confidence in the professions regulated under the Order; and
• to promote and maintain proper professional standards of conduct for members of those professions.

42. It also bore in mind that in deciding whether the Registrant ’s fitness to practise is still impaired, it should follow the approach of Dame Janet Smith endorsed by the High Court in CHRE v NMC and P Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin):

"Do our findings of fact in respect of the (Registrant ’s) misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/he:
a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the …..profession into disrepute; and/or
c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the … profession; and/or
d. has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future”.

43. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note which directs Panels to look at both the personal and public components of impairment of fitness to practise, starting with the personal component. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant ’s own practice as an Occupational Therapist, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.
44. Accordingly, the Panel looked at the personal component first and reminded itself of the key questions which need to be answered:

i. are the acts or omissions which led to the allegation remediable?
ii. has the Registrant taken remedial action?
iii. are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated?

45. The Panel bore in mind that an important factor will be the Registrant ’s insight into those acts or omissions, the extent to which the Registrant:

• understands how and why it occurred and its consequences for those affected; and
• can demonstrate they have taken action to address that failure in a manner which remedies any past harm (where that is possible) and avoids any future repetition.

46. The Panel also bore in mind the public component of impairment which encompasses the second and third limbs of the overarching objective, namely promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession and promoting and maintaining proper professional standards of conduct for the profession.

The Panel’s decision on misconduct
47. The Panel was satisfied that the matters admitted at Particulars 1-4 comprised a course of conduct between the end of September 2020 and the end of January 2021.
48. The Panel reminded itself that this course of conduct resulted in the Registrant undertaking two full-time jobs at the same time, without telling either employer and drawing two sets of payments. The job with the Council was contracted directly via the Registrant’s own company. The Panel concluded that this can properly be described as a repeated pattern of dishonesty for financial gain and that the Registrant put his own needs above those of his service users and employers.
49. The Panel also acknowledge that this course of conduct breached Standard 9 and in Particular 9.1 of the Standards.
50. The Panel accepted the Registrant ’s evidence that he did this at a time of very significant financial pressure but is satisfied that this does not significantly reduce his culpability for what he did. The Panel was also satisfied that this was conduct which undermines trust in the profession and had the potential to put service users at risk and only ceased when it was discovered. 51. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the matters proved amount to serious misconduct.

The Panel’s approach to impairment
52. Turning to the question of impairment, the Committee was satisfied that the Registrant ’s’ misconduct engaged all four of the questions asked by the High Court in Grant (above).
53. The Panel acknowledge that there is no evidence that any particular service user had been put at risk. However, the Panel observed that the Registrant had a client facing role and one of his responsibilities was to deal with emergency situations. It concluded that there was a potential risk to service users of him being unavailable if he was engaged in the work of another local authority.
54. The Panel was satisfied that honesty and integrity are fundamental tenets of the profession, and the reputation of the profession depends upon its members behaving in an open and honest manner. For these reasons, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had brought the profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of the profession. For the same reasons the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has acted dishonestly in the past.
55. In order to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired the Panel then asked itself whether the Registrant ’s fitness to practice is impaired under the personal component, in other words whether there remains a risk that he would repeat his misconduct or similar misconduct in the future.
56. The Panel observed that matters of dishonesty are difficult to remedy and all the more so where the dishonesty is repeated over a significant period of time. Nevertheless, it was satisfied that the misconduct in this case was capable of being remedied if the Registrant developed sufficient insight and undertook appropriate remediation.
57. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has developed some insight. The Panel found that the Registrant had demonstrated this by making full admissions at the outset of the hearing and by the reflective piece he had written and the evidence he gave. The Panel also acknowledged that there has been no evidence of any repetition of misconduct by the Registrant since these matters were discovered. 58. Nevertheless, the Panel found that there was very little if any objective evidence to reassure it that the Registrant had developed sufficient insight to take effective steps to ensure that he did not repeat his misconduct if he were ever under financial pressure again.
59. The Panel observed that although the Registrant spoke in general terms of working for other local authorities as a locum there was no detail or documentary evidence of the work he had done or independent evidence of the opinion of colleagues or managers (who he assured the Panel knew of his HCPC proceedings).
60. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had spoken of doing some continuing professional development. He spoke in very general terms of having done a course, the details of which he could not remember, related to ethics and integrity. The Registrant could not give any evidence of what he had learned from that course. The Panel concluded that this fell a long way short of material sufficient to persuade it that the Registrant had learned the lessons of his misconduct and could be relied upon to conduct himself differently in the future.
61. For these reasons the Panel concluded that the Registrant ’s fitness to practices is currently impaired under the personal component.
62. The Panel also asked itself whether a finding of impairment was required in the wider public interest to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct for the profession.
63. The Panel concluded that a finding is necessary, because an informed member of the public would be shocked and their confidence in the profession would be undermined if they learned that an Occupational Therapist could practise without restriction after acting dishonestly over several months and while a risk of repetition remains. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant ’s fitness to practise is also impaired under the public component.
64. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Registrant 's fitness to practise impaired under the personal and public components, under all three limbs of the overarching objective.

Sanction
65. Having found the Registrant’s fitness to practise impaired, for the reasons set out above, the Panel considered, what, if any sanction it should impose on the Registrant.

Submissions and advice
66. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack on the issue of sanction. He drew the Panel’s attention to the relevant guidance and indicated that the HCPC was neutral on the question of sanction.
67. The Panel also heard submissions from the Registrant. He said that he hoped the Panel would take a lenient approach to him bearing in mind that he had been a good Occupational Therapist for 12 years before the matters giving rise to the finding of impairment in this case and he had continued to be a good and respectable Occupational Therapist since then.
68. He told the Panel that he would continue to improve his skills and have further training in decision-making in his career. He told the Panel that the biggest impact on him of a period of suspension or a striking off order would be on his family. In order to ensure there would be no repetition he would do further training and may seek a professional mentor. He explained that he had spoken to a manager at the agency for which he had been working about that but he had not actually sought one to date.
69. The Registrant confirmed that he was the sole breadwinner for his family but did not wish to go into details of his expenses. He said that in case he were no longer able to practise, he was learning how to trade and was looking for advisory or non-clinical positions.
70. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (SP). The Panel has followed both in its decision set out below.

The Panel’s approach to sanction
71. The Panel is aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect the public and the wider public interest, which includes the reputation of the profession and promoting and maintaining public confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process.
72. The Panel also bore in mind the principle of proportionality and balanced the Panel’s duty to protect the public against the impact on the Registrant. The Panel bore in mind the guidance in SP that it should consider each available sanction in turn, starting with the least restrictive and only considering a more restrictive sanction if that is necessary.

73. The Panel reminded itself of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession and had regard to the decision in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512

‘The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is part of the price.’

74. The Panel also reminded itself of the importance of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at a fair assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct in this case. It determined to take a proportionate approach.

The Panel’s decision on sanction
75. The Panel took into account the following mitigating factors:

a. The Registrant’s unblemished record before the misconduct in this case;
b. No evidence that the misconduct in this case has been repeated;
c. The Registrant has developed limited insight, demonstrated in part by his full admissions to the Allegation.

76. The Panel also considered the following aggravating factors:

a. The dishonesty in this case amounted to a pattern of behaviour, repeated over several months, until he was discovered;
b. The misconduct represented a significant breach of trust by an experienced Occupational Therapist;
c. The Registrant’s dishonesty took place during his professional practice and involved putting his own interests ahead of his duty to his employers and service users.
d. The Registrant used a company of which he was the sole director to facilitate the misconduct.

77. Having considered both the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, the Panel found that the effect of the aggravating features taken together, outweighed that of the mitigating features because of the factors set out below.

78. Dishonesty is identified in the Sanctions policy as a particularly serious matter that undermines public confidence in the profession. The Panel had particular regard to paragraphs 57 and 58 of SP.

57. Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety. It is likely to lead to more serious sanctions.
58. Given the seriousness of dishonesty, cases are likely to result in more serious sanctions. However, Panels should bear in mind that there are different forms, and different degrees, of dishonesty, that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that Panels should take into account in this regard include:

i. whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act, or occurred on multiple occasions;
ii. the duration of any dishonesty;
iii. whether the Registrant took a passive or active role in it;
iv. any early admission of dishonesty on the Registrant’s behalf; and
v. any other relevant mitigating factors.

79. The Panel reminded itself that the misconduct in this case was repeated each week for approximately 15 weeks. The dishonesty continued for that period until the Registrant was discovered and not because he abandoned the misconduct. The Registrant took an active role in the dishonesty including using a company of which he was a director to increase his profit. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant admitted his dishonesty at an early stage but was satisfied that he did so only after he was caught and faced with overwhelming evidence. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant may have acted under significant financial pressure, but this does not materially reduce the seriousness of what he did.
80. The Panel also found that the mitigating features were not sufficient to demonstrate to the Panel that the Registrant had developed sufficient insight or undertaken sufficient remediation to reassure the Panel that repetition is unlikely at this stage, despite the passage of nearly five years. Accordingly, the Panel found that a sanction was necessary to protect the public and the wider public interest.
81. The Panel then considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity.
82. The Panel concluded that to take no action or to impose a caution would not be appropriate given the very serious nature of the Registrant’s misconduct. Such a course would not be sufficiently restrictive to protect the public, nor would it uphold the wider public interest.
83. The Panel considered whether a conditions of practice order would be sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.
84. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 106 and 107 of the Sanctions Policy.
85. 106. 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.

86. The Panel has already found that the Registrant’s misconduct could in principle be remedied but it is unable to formulate conditions which would be appropriate or workable to address his dishonesty. It was satisfied that a conditions of practice order would not be sufficient to satisfy the wider public interest.
87. For these reasons, the Panel does not impose a conditions of practice order.
88. The Panel then considered a suspension order. It had regard to paragraph 121 of SP.

121. A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the Registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the Registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

89. The Panel had no doubt that the concerns in this case represented a serious breach of the Standards. The Panel has already identified that the Registrant has developed some insight but not sufficient considering the passage of nearly five years. The Panel has also identified a risk of repetition. Of particular concern to the Panel was whether there was any evidence that the Registrant would be able to resolve or remedy his failings during a period of suspension. The Panel was extremely concerned that the Registrant had done little to reassure the Panel for the reasons set out above and concluded from his evidence that he had little desire to take further steps to reassure a Panel in the future.
90. For these reasons, the Panel was not satisfied that a suspension order would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and turned to consider a striking off order.
91. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 130 and 131 of SP:

130. A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving (this list is not exhaustive):
• dishonesty
131. A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the Registrant:
• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a Registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.

92. The Panel reminded itself that the misconduct in this case was serious and persistent dishonesty, aggravated by all the matters set out above. It acknowledged that the Registrant had engaged in the regulatory process and was not actively unwilling to resolve matters. However, he presented no independent evidence to support his oral submissions. Although he had developed some insight, the Panel felt this was wholly insufficient considering the passage of time. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had provided the Panel with insufficient reason to be reassured by his current insight or be confident that he would develop sufficient insight in the future.

93. Taking all these matters together, the Panel concluded that any sanction less than a striking off order would be inadequate to demonstrate that the profession had no place for someone who had been persistently dishonest, above all when he had done so little to remedy the position.

94. Accordingly, the Panel imposed a striking off order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Kevel Gumbs from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect

Interim Order
1. After the Panel announced its decision on sanction, Mr Slack applied for an interim order to cover the period before the Strike Off Order will come into effect (that is to say, initially 28 days or the final determination of the appeal if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision within the initial period of 28 days).

Submissions and advice
2. Mr Slack drew the Panel’s attention to Article 31 of The Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) and the relevant paragraphs of Sanctions Policy, to which the Panel refers below and submitted that an order was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise in the public interest.

3. The Registrant said that he had no submissions he wished to make.

4. The Panel also received and accepted the advice of the legal assessor which it has followed in its decision set out below.

The Panel’s decision
5. The Panel reminded itself that Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001 as amended provides that the Panel may make an interim order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned, for the registration of that person to be suspended or to be made subject to conditions.

6. Sanctions Policy (SP) gives guidance in the following terms:

i. 135. An interim order is likely to be required in cases where:
• there is a serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the Registrant’s lack of professional knowledge or skills, conduct, or unmanaged health problems; or
• the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.

7. For the reasons already explained in the determination relating to the substantive issues, the Panel has concluded that there remains a significant risk that the Registrant will repeat his misconduct, which would put employers and service users at risk, and that public confidence in the profession of Occupational Therapy would be undermined if the Registrant were to be able to practise without restriction until the order comes into force or any appeal is resolved

8. For those reasons, the Panel was satisfied that an interim order is required both to protect the public and in the wider public interest of maintaining public confidence in Occupational Therapists.

9. Having decided that an interim order is required, the Panel next considered whether an interim conditions of practice order would offer sufficient protection during the period while the Registrant’s appeal rights remain extant. The Panel concluded that it would not for the same reasons that it rejected substantive conditions of practice as an appropriate sanction.

10. For those reasons, the Panel concluded that an interim Suspension Order is required.

11. Turning to the length of this interim order, the Panel determined that it should be for the maximum period of 18 months. If the Registrant does not appeal the Panel’s substantive decision the interim order will simply fall away after 28 days, and therefore the maximum length of the order will not prejudice him. If, however, he does appeal the final determination of the appeal could well take 18 months from the present time, and it is appropriate that there should be the full degree of public protection until that final determination.

12. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

13. 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 Kevel Gumbs