Helena Parker

Preliminary Matters

The hearing to be conducted partly in private

1. At the commencement of the hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should be conducted partly in private. The basis for this application was that it was understood that the Registrant’s evidence would touch upon both issues relating to her family life and her health. It being expected that the Registrant’s evidence would include these matters, the submission made to the Panel was that those parts of the hearing in which they were discussed should be conducted in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Shurey agreed to the direction sought.

2. Having taken the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that it was proper to depart from the default position of a public hearing to receive evidence and submissions on the issue indicated by the Presenting Officer. Accordingly, the Panel acceded to the application.

3. For the same reasons that justified holding part of the hearing in private, the Panel decided that elements of its written determination should be included in a private version of that document. A redacted, public version of the determination has been produced.
The Registrant’s response to the Allegation and the Panel’s acceptance of her admission

4. When invited to respond to the Allegation, on behalf of the Registrant, Mr Shurey stated that particular 1 was admitted, but that particular 2 was disputed.

5. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor in relation to whether the Registrant’s admission of particular 1 could and should be accepted. The conclusion of the Panel was that the admission should be accepted. There was no contention that the identity of the person convicted had been mistaken for that of the Registrant and the admission accorded with the memorandum of an entry in the register of the relevant Court. The admission had been previously advanced by the Registrant in her witness statement made on 24 November 2025, and it had been proffered in circumstances where she had the benefit of legal representation.

Background

6. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Operating Department Practitioner.

7. The HCPC’s Allegation against the Registrant is that her fitness to practise is impaired by reason of a conviction. The conviction was recorded upon the Registrant’s plea of guilty in the Newton Abbot Magistrates’ Court on 4 May 2022. The full details of the offence are included in Allegation as it appears at the head of this document, but can be more briefly described as failing without reasonable excuse to provide a sample of breath upon being suspected of a drink driving offence. The sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court included a fine of £692.00 and disqualification from driving for a period of 17 months. That full period of disqualification was subsequently reduced by 17 weeks after the Registrant satisfactorily completed a Drink Driving Rehabilitation Course in January 2023.

8. The circumstances of the offence were that at about 01:00am on 13 March 2022, Police Officers attended a road in Torquay where they saw a stationary car in the road. The Registrant was in the driver’s seat of the car and appeared to be intoxicated. A sample of breath was requested at the scene. After struggling to provide a sample, on the fifth attempt a sample that produced the result “Fail” was provided. The Registrant was arrested and taken into custody. When in custody, the Registrant was twice requested to provide samples of breath, but refused to do so.

9. The HCPC became aware of the fact that the Registrant had been convicted as a result of the Registrant’s own referral. She sent an email to the HCPC on 28 September 2022, stating that she had previously notified the HCPC on 14 May 2022, but had not received any response.

10. On 27 November 2023, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer in relation to the Allegation now being considered by the Panel.

Decision on Facts and Ground

11. The acceptance by the Panel of the Registrant’s admission of particular 1 of the Allegation resulted in the sole factual issue advanced by the HCPC being proven. Proof of that fact meant that the statutory ground of conviction was made out.

Decision on Impairment
The Registrant’s evidence relating to impairment

12. In advance of the hearing, the Panel received a witness statement made by the Registrant on 24 November 2025. Before the hearing commenced, the Panel also received a short bundle of documents provided by the Registrant. Included in this bundle of documents was a C.V., two positive testimonials, confirmation that the rehabilitation course to which reference has already been made had in fact been completed, and a note dated 4 December 2025, written by the Registrant’s General Practitioner.

13. The Registrant gave evidence before the Panel. She informed the Panel that the incident underpinning the conviction arose [Redacted], never having previously been in that position. When asked what she felt about her actions, she said that she felt embarrassed, ashamed and upset, and recognised that she should never have put herself in that position. She stated that she considered that it was not acceptable for a professional person to be in that position, the public deserving better. She stated that she recognised that the very vulnerable position of patients when they
have contact with Operating Department Practitioners means that those patients must have confidence in the person dealing with them.

14. [Redacted].

15. While disqualified from driving she had found it too difficult to reach a hospital for work and had therefore paused her practice as an Operating Department Practitioner. Subsequently, she undertook some bank work. At present she is on leave, but is hoping and intending to return to practise as an Operating Department Practitioner full time in early 2026, having already arranged childcare.

The HCPC’s submissions on impairment

16. The Presenting Officer made her submission in writing, supplementing those submissions by stating that the HCPC accepted that the Registrant did not have a history of fitness to practise issues.

17. In her written submissions, the Presenting Officer invited the Panel to ask itself questions that are suggested on the issue by the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Fitness to Practise Impairment. In inviting the Panel to address the questions whether the Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute, and whether she has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach on the fundamental tenants of the profession, the Presenting Officer invited the Panel to answer those questions in the affirmative. She submitted that the Registrant breached standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics in force at the time which states ‘you must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.’ The Presenting Officer concluded her written submissions as follows, ‘On the basis of the personal and public component, it is the HCPC’s submission that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding were not made in this case.’

Mr Shurey’s submissions on impairment

18. Mr Shurey began his submissions by informing the Panel that he would take as a template for what he would say, various elements of the Practice Note already referred to. Quoting paragraph 4 of that document, he submitted that at the present time there is not a concern about the Registrant’s conduct, competence, health or character which is serious enough to suggest that she is unfit to practise without restriction, or at all. He then went through the eleven non-exhaustive factors identified in paragraph 15 of the Practice Note, and submitted that on a proper and fair appreciation of the answers to the questions there posed, the Panel should decide that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired. The Panel will not summarise those submissions here as when it made its decisions it considered them and accepted them. Accordingly, they will be described below.

19. Mr Shurey submitted that the Registrant’s life had moved on completely since March 2022. [Redacted].

20. In view of the significant passage of time since the incident, there having been no previous or other incidents recorded against the Registrant, the positive testimonials and the work she has done since being convicted, Mr Shurey submitted that the Panel should find that there is no ongoing impairment of fitness to practise in relation to either the personal or public component.

The Panel’s decision on impairment

21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and paid close attention to the Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment. Accordingly, the Panel addressed both the personal and public components.

22. At the commencement of its discussions, the Panel reminded itself of what the conviction was. It was not that the Registrant had driven the car while drunk. It was that she had declined to provide samples of breath when there had been a valid reason for the request that she should do so.

23. The Panel accepted as truthful the Registrant’s evidence that her personal circumstances are now significantly different to those in early 2022. She undertook a rehabilitation course in order to reduce the period of her driving disqualification. Furthermore, the Panel accepted that the Registrant is now more careful with her consumption of alcohol, [Redacted]. She is now in a settled relationship and has a good support network, including her parents who live nearby. Furthermore, the Panel accepted that the Registrant does understand why an event such as that which occurred on 13 March 2022, an event that had no direct connection to her profession, is highly relevant to professional character. The Panel also accepted that the Registrant has a genuine desire to continue to work as an Operating Department Practitioner. These findings, coupled with the positive testimonial evidence (provided by individuals who had knowledge of the conviction), have led the Panel to conclude that the Registrant has acknowledged the seriousness of her actions, has apologised for it and has done all that she could reasonably be expected to do to remediate the serious breach of which she was guilty.

24. Having regard to these factors, the Panel has concluded that there is not a sufficient likelihood of a repetition of similar behaviour to justify a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise for that reason.

25. It has already been stated that in his submissions, Mr Shurey went through the eleven factors identified in paragraph 15 of the Practice Note. The Panel accepted the submissions he made for the following reasons:
a. the Registrant’s behaviour on 13 March 2022 did indeed represent a departure from expected professional conduct and standards but it was on the lower end of seriousness;
b. there was and is an impact on maintaining public confidence in the profession as the Panel will elaborate when its decision on the public component is explained;
c. it cannot be said that a risk of harm was caused – the conduct did not occur in a context where patients, service users or colleagues were present, and, so far as the public is concerned, the offence was not one of driving while intoxicated;
d. there was no effect on the delivery of care and safe practice;
e. the issue is an isolated one and there is no suggestion that it has been repeated;
f. the behaviour was neither directed towards, nor did it involve, vulnerable service users;
g. the offence did not involve the Registrant abusing her professional position;
h. the behaviour was not dishonest, of a sexual character or predatory;
i. the Panel accepts that the Registrant has shown insight for the reasons described above;
j. there has been no denial by the Registrant – she pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court, self-referred to the HCPC and admitted the conviction at this hearing;
k. the Panel accepts that the Registrant has undertaken remediation and that the consequence of that is that the risk of repetition is low.

26. Taking all these factors into account, and while again reminding itself of the seriousness of the offence admitted by the Registrant when she appeared in the Magistrates’ Court, the Panel has concluded that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise is not required upon consideration of the personal component.

27. The Panel then went on to consider the public component. In reaching a decision on that issue, the Panel heeded the terms of the Practice Note, and in particular the section of it commencing at paragraph 32. Consistent with the finding in relation to the personal component, the Panel does not consider that the need to protect service users is engaged in this case. However, that left the issues of maintaining professional standards and public confidence as issues to be decided.

28. In addressing the question whether a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise is required, the Panel acknowledged that the answer is required assuming an informed knowledge of all the circumstances (including the fact, as found by the Panel, that there is not a significant risk of repetition). It also requires an acknowledgement that the incident occurred over three years ago. Nevertheless, after careful consideration, the Panel concluded that the seriousness of the conviction does need to be marked by a finding of impairment of fitness to practise. Were the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired, the Panel would be failing to recognise importance of declaring and maintaining professional standards, and the wrong message would be sent to other registrants. Furthermore, a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise is required to reassure the public that there is robust regulation of those health professionals with whom they come into contact when they are in an acutely vulnerable state.

29. The conclusion of the Panel is that a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise is required on the public component alone. The consequence of that finding is that the Panel must go on to consider the issue of sanction.

Decision on Sanction

The HCPC’s submissions on sanction

30. The Presenting Officer made her submissions on behalf of the HCPC in writing. She provided a helpful summary of the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction, outlined the available sanctions, and drew the attention of the Panel to the section commencing at paragraph 80 of the Sanctions Policy in which convictions are discussed. She suggested that the Panel might consider the fact that no previous fitness to practise findings have been made against the Registrant to be a mitigating factor. As aggravating factors, reference was made to the facts that the car in which the Registrant was found by the Police was stationary in a traffic lane and that there was a passenger in the vehicle.

31. In oral submissions, the Presenting Officer made it clear that the HCPC was not submitting that any particular sanction should be imposed. The HCPC acknowledged that the issue of the appropriate sanction is one for the Panel’s discretion guided by the terms of the Sanctions Policy.

Mr Shurey’s submissions on sanction on behalf of the Registrant

32. Mr Shurey commenced his submissions by stating that it was his intention to request that the Panel should impose no sanction at all. Alternatively, if the Panel considered that a sanction had to be imposed, he submitted that it should be a caution order.

33. Acknowledging that the issue concerned a criminal conviction, Mr Shurey submitted that it was a conviction towards the bottom end of the range of seriousness, the offence being a summary only matter that resulted in a financial penalty and disqualification and that all elements of the sentence had now been completed. He also submitted that the Panel should take the view that the Registrant had satisfied all of the mitigating factors identified in the Sanctions Policy, because she has insight, has apologised and expressed remorse, and has undertaken remediation. He also submitted that the case lacks aggravating factors. In these circumstances, it was argued that to take no action would be consistent with the guidance contained in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Sanctions Policy.

34. In advancing his alternative submission that a caution order would be the appropriate disposal in the event that the Panel did not accept the primary submission that there should be no order, Mr Shurey took the Panel to paragraphs 99 to 102 of the Sanctions Policy. He concentrated on the factors identified in paragraph 101 which are suggested as being likely to be present in the event of a caution order being appropriate. It was submitted that the present case met each of those identified factors. Mr Shurey went on to advance his submission that no more severe sanction than a caution order should be imposed by arguing that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate as the present case does not involve clinical concerns. A suspension order, he submitted, would be disproportionately severe and would also be contrary to the public interest as it would deprive the public of the services of an Operating Department Practitioner who is a competent and committed practitioner.

The Panel’s decision

35. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and followed the guidance contained in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. Accordingly, the Panel approached the decision it was required to make on the basis that a sanction should not be imposed to punish the Registrant. Rather, any sanction decided upon should be the least restrictive outcome consistent with the need to protect service users, to maintain public confidence in the registered profession and the regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. To ensure that the least restrictive measure is applied, it is necessary for the available sanctions to be considered in an ascending order of seriousness. As the Panel’s finding is that a conviction allegation is well founded, the entire sanction range up to, and including, a striking off order was available.

36. The Panel began its deliberations by identifying whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors that it would be appropriate to take into account when deciding on the appropriate sanction.

37. In explaining its decision on impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel has already expressed its view about the gravity of the conviction, which involved the Registrant failing to provide the samples of breath that she had been lawfully required to give. In the view of the Panel there were no factors that further aggravated or mitigated that specific failing or the conviction that resulted from it.

38. In identifying factors that it would be appropriate to take into account of the Registrant, the Panel acknowledged that she pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court, has undertaken remediation, has apologised and, as a result of remediation, there is not an appreciable risk of repetition. The Panel also acknowledged that the Registrant has no adverse fitness to practise history.

39. Before deciding on the appropriate sanction decision, the Panel reminded itself of the factors that dictated that a finding of public component impairment of fitness to practise was required. That decision was that the conviction needed to be marked to declare proper professional standards and to reassure the public that they can have confidence in health professionals with whom they come into contact.

40. With these findings in mind, the Panel then considered whether this would be an appropriate case in which to make no order. The conclusion of the Panel was that it would not because such a disposal would not provide the public marking of the matter, which was the very reason why the Registrant’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired.

41. The Panel then considered a caution order, and in that context considered paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy, which is in these terms:
‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.’

42. The Panel is satisfied that the issue was isolated and limited. It could be debated whether the conviction was ‘relatively minor in nature.’ It was certainly not insignificant, as the Panel’s impairment decision demonstrates. But at the same time, it was clearly not a conviction for a very serious offence. Given that the ‘isolated,’ ‘limited’ and ‘relatively minor’ in first bullet point are joined by the word ‘or,’ the Panel is satisfied that the present case falls within the envisaged categories of cases. As has already been explained in the impairment of fitness to practise decision, the Panel is satisfied that there is a low risk of repetition, the Registrant has shown insight and that she has undertaken appropriate remediation.

43. Being satisfied that the present case falls within the ambit of paragraph 101, the Panel formed the tentative view that a caution order would be appropriate. To test whether it would indeed be appropriate, the Panel looked further up the sanction scale. Having done so, the conclusion of the Panel was that this is a case in which a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate. The concerns are not of a clinical nature, and there are no restrictions that need to be imposed by conditions to ensure that the Registrant will be able to practise safely and effectively. In view of the fact that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate, the Panel then assessed whether the Registrant should be made the subject of a suspension order. In the view of the Panel, to suspend the Registrant’s ability to practise would be wholly disproportionate in view of the factors identified above.

44. Having determined that the present case falls within the ambit of paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy and that a more restrictive sanction should not be imposed, the Panel decided that a caution order should be made.

45. As to the duration of the caution order, the Panel has concluded that it should be for a period of one year. That period will serve to provide the marker that the Panel has decided needs to be laid down. A longer period would not serve any useful purpose.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register entry of Helena Parker with a caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of 1 year from the date this Order comes into effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Helena Parker