Hellen Wachepa

Preliminary Matters

Application for hearing in private

1.The Registrant applied for the Panel to hear the entire hearing in private on the basis that there would be issues raised relating to the Registrant’s health and private life. Mr Maughan submitted that the HCPC opposed the application to have the entire hearing held in private and submitted that parts of the hearing could be dealt with in private where issues were raised in relation to the Registrant’s health and private life. 

2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor's advice and took into consideration the HCPTS' Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’.

3. The Panel referred to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) 2003 Rules, which provides that:
“The proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional ... the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing".

4. The Panel was mindful that during the course of the hearing there will be reference to the Registrant’s health and private life. The Panel considered whether those parts of the Hearing could be dealt with in private. The Panel determined that where such issues arise, they should be dealt with partly in private. The Panel determined that such issues are likely to arise during the Registrants evidence, and it would be difficult to separate them. Therefore, the Panel concluded that all of the Registrant’s evidence should be held in private to protect the private life of the Registrant.

Background

5. At the relevant time, the Registrant was a registered occupational therapist (OT81086) with the HCPC employed by North Yorkshire County Council Health and Adult Services (NYC). The Registrant commenced employment with NYC on 5 September 2022. 

6. On 14 August 2023, the Registrant was arrested by the police for various offences including driving a vehicle with a level of alcohol in her breath which exceeded the prescribed limit. Driving to appointments was an essential part of her role with NYC.

7. On 15 August 2023 the Registrant was charged with the following 4 offences all of which relate to an incident on 14 August 2023:
- Driving a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol above the legal limit

- Driving without valid insurance

- Driving without a valid licence

- Obstructing a police officer

8. The HCPC case is that there was no disclosure of the charges at this time to the Registrant’s employer or to the HCPC. 

9. The Registrant subsequently appeared at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court on 11 September 2023 and pleaded guilty to all 4 offences. The Registrant’s total sentence handed down by the Court upon conviction comprised the following elements:

a. Disqualified from driving for 24 months (reduced by 24 weeks following successful completion of a rehabilitation course by 26 January 2025).

b. Fine £766

c. Victim Surcharge £306

d. Costs £85

10. It is the HCPC case that the Registrant was under a duty to inform the HCPC and her employer of the charges against her and her convictions as soon as possible. 

11. On 14 September 2023, the Registrant disclosed to her employer during a supervision session that she had been arrested, charged, convicted and suspended from driving following a drink driving incident. This was approximately 31 days after her initial arrest and charge. 

12. On 26 September 2023, the HCPC received a self-referral confirming the circumstances surrounding the drink driving incident, the conviction for same and details of the subsequent sentence handed down by the Court. This was 43 days after the Registrant was charged. In section 7 of the referral form, the Registrant confirmed by way of an X in the appropriate box, that a conviction or caution certificate was attached. However, the only offence declared at that time was the offence of driving with excess alcohol. 

13. It is the HCPC case that the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest in that she knew that she was required to disclose the charges and convictions to the HCPC and to her employer. 

14. Following the referral, the matter was placed before the Investigating Committee on 25 March 2024, who referred this case for resolution before the Conduct and Competence Committee with the Allegation noted above.

Evidence

15. The Panel heard from one witness on behalf of the HCPC:

• Witness 1, the Registrant’s former employer and manager

16. The Panel also read the witness statement of Witness 2, an employee of the HCPC whose evidence was agreed. It was submitted that due to the nature of the evidence provided, no prejudice was caused to the Registrant in not inviting them to attend to be questioned.

17. The HCPC provided a Hearing bundle which included witness statements, the Memorandum of Conviction, information in relation to the disciplinary investigation, the Registrants contract of employment, the NYC standards of conduct policy, copies of email correspondence, and other documents.

18. The Registrant’s evidence to the Panel included oral evidence from:

• The Registrant, on her own behalf

Witness 1

19. The Panel heard from Witness 1. Witness 1 confirmed her witness statement dated 12 August 2024, and the accompanying exhibits were true to the best of her knowledge and belief. 

20. At the outset, Witness 1 confirmed that having a driving licence was an essential part of the Registrant’s job, due to the rural location of the patch and the number of home visits to be carried out by occupational therapists. 

21. Witness 1 stated that the Registrant disclosed her conviction for driving with excess alcohol during a supervision meeting on 14 September 2023. She did not disclose any other offence at this time. Witness 1 told the Panel that there were some discrepancies in the account provided to her at that time and in the account subsequently provided by the Registrant at the Disciplinary investigation meeting. Witness 1 stated that she was initially informed by the Registrant that she was banned from driving for 18 months. However, the Registrant subsequently informed her that the driving ban was 24 months.

22. Witness 1 also told the Panel that she was not made aware of the offence of Obstructing Police by the Registrant until the disciplinary investigation meeting. She confirmed that she was not made aware of the remaining offences, namely Driving without a licence or insurance until the date of this hearing. She stated that this was significant as this would have formed part of the disciplinary hearing, had she been made aware of this information. 

23. Witness 1 confirmed that she was aware that the Registrant had emailed the HCPC’s generic email contact on 19 September 2023 and that the Registrant had received an automated response. 

24. Witness 1 stated that she recalled the basis for the Registrant being on leave around the time of the incident and acknowledged that this was as a result of difficult personal circumstances. 

25. In relation to Particular 6, Witness 1 told the Panel that she was on annual leave the day the Registrant returned to work, however she stated that the Registrant could have reported the matters to another team manager in accordance with their policy and the staff would be aware of this. 

The Registrant’s evidence

26. [Redacted].

27. [Redacted].

28. [Redacted].

29. [Redacted].

30. [Redacted].

Submissions on Facts

Submissions for the HCPC

31. The Presenting Officer, Mr Maughan made comprehensive oral submissions to the Panel. He referred the Panel to the supporting evidence provided by the witnesses and the evidence relating to each unadmitted particular. 

32. In relation to Particular 6, Mr Maughan submitted that the Panel heard credible evidence from Witness 1 that she met with the Registrant on 16 August 2023 when they both returned from annual leave and that this would have been an opportunity for the Registrant to inform Witness 1 that she had been charged with all or any of the 4 offences. 

33. He submitted that the Registrant accepted that in her evidence that she should have informed Witness 1 when they were both back at work on 16 August 2023 that she had been arrested and charged with 4 offences. Mr Maughan submitted that the Panel should find Particular 6 proved.

34. In relation to Particular 8, Mr Maughan highlighted a number of factors which he submitted support an element of dishonesty in respect of the Registrant’s failure to disclose the information to her employer and the HCPC as set out in Particular 5, 6 and 7.

35. He submitted that the Registrant’s was aware and had knowledge of the circumstances she was in, having been arrested and charged with driving with excess alcohol, which carried obvious repercussions to both her registration and reputation. He submitted that if the Registrant knew that she had to disclose this information and chose not to because it would have a negative effect on her or her employer, then any ordinary decent person would believe that lack of disclosure to be dishonest and as such the Panel should find Particular 8 proved.
 
Submissions for the Registrant

36. The Registrant provided oral submissions to the Panel and submitted [Redacted].

37. [Redacted]. 

38. [Redacted]. 

39. [Redacted]. 

Legal Advice

40. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to assess all the evidence on the balance of probabilities, the onus of proof resting upon the HCPC. It should consider all the oral and documentary evidence and must only find a fact proved if it considers it more likely than not to have occurred. 

41. It should consider all the oral and documentary evidence and be mindful of the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the relevant authority, namely Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, regarding findings of dishonesty. 

42. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that the Registrant has had no previous findings made against her and that the Panel should consider her good character when making any determination.

Decision on Facts

43. At the outset the Panel noted that the Registrant had made full admissions to Particulars 1 - 5 and Particular 7 and a partial admission to Particular 6.

44. In relation to the unadmitted particulars, the Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so those particulars of the Allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

45. The Panel took into account the oral evidence and submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the evidence and submissions of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

46. The Panel made the following findings of fact.

Particular 1 – Proved 

On 11 September 2023, at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising you to drive a motor vehicle of that class, contrary to section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offender Act 1988.

47. With regard to Particular 1, the Panel found this Particular proved by virtue of the Registrant’s admission. 

Particular 2 – Proved 

On 11 September 2023, at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place when there was no in force in relation to that use such a policy of insurance, contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

48. With regard to Particular 2, the Panel found this Particular proved by virtue of the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 3 – Proved 

On 11 September 2023, at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 93 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5 (1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

49. With regard to Particular 3, the Panel found this Particular proved by virtue of the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 4 – Proved 

On 11 September 2023, at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court, you were convicted of willfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996.

50. With regard to Particular 4, the Panel found this Particular proved by virtue of the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 5 – Proved 

You did not inform the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) as soon as possible that you had been charged with any and/or all the offences set out in particulars 1 – 4.

51. With regard to Particular 5, the Panel found this Particular proved by virtue of the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 6 – Proved 

You did not inform your employer as soon as possible that you had been charged with any and/or all the offences set out in particulars 1 – 4.

52. The Panel noted that the Registrant made a partial admission to Particular 6 on the basis that she had declared the conviction for drink driving to her employer. 

53. The Panel found that the evidence in support of Particular 6 was provided by reference to the oral and documentary evidence from Witness 1. The Panel noted that the Registrant was charged in relation to all 4 offences on 15 August 2023, however she did not inform her employer that she had been charged until 14 September 2023 and on that date, she declared one offence of driving with excess alcohol. The Panel noted that she did not notify her employer until 31 days after being charged which cannot be said to be ‘as soon as possible’, ‘immediately’ or ‘in a timely manner’ as is stipulated in the employment contract and NYC standards.

54. The Panel further noted that the Registrant did not declare the offence of Obstructing Police until her disciplinary investigation meeting and her employer, Witness 1, was not aware of the remaining offences until the date of this Hearing. 

55. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 6 proved.

Particular 7 – Proved 

You did not inform the HCPC as soon as possible that you had been convicted of any and/or all the offences set out in particulars 1, 2 and/or 4.

56. With regard to Particular 7, the Panel found this Particular proved by virtue of the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 8 – Proved 

Your conduct at particulars 5, 6 and/or 7 above was dishonest in that you knew you were required to disclose the charges and/or convictions to the HCPC and/or your employer

57. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered all the oral and documentary evidence before it. The Panel also had regard to the relevant guidance and case law surrounding dishonesty allegations.

58. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been employed as an Occupational Therapist for 4 years and the Panel determined that the Registrant would have had knowledge of the standards expected of a registered Occupational Therapist. This included the need to disclose her charges and/or convictions as soon as possible.

59. The Panel had regard to the Registrants evidence that she was aware of the details of her contract of employment and that she had sought legal advice from a Solicitor in relation to whether she should declare the fact that she had been charged. The Panel noted that the Registrant took the decision to wait for 31 days before declaring any charges to her employer. 

60. The Panel considered the Registrant’s evidence that she was fearful of the repercussions of her conduct and was concerned about the impact it would have on her family, [Redacted] and on her reputation. The Panel did not accept that the Registrant’s assertion that her decision not to inform the HCPC and her employer about the incident between the time she was charged and the time she was convicted was done out of a lack of knowledge or understanding.

61. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant was fully aware that having a driving licence was an expectation of her role with NYC, that NYC believed she held a driving licence and that she had deliberately concealed some of the charges as a result of this.

62. The Panel had regard to the fact that the Registrant pleaded guilty to all the offences at Court and she made admissions to most of the particulars of the Allegation. The Panel also noted that the Registrant was experiencing a difficult period in her personal life at the time of the incident. 

63. However, the Panel was of the view that there was a chain of dishonest conduct demonstrated by the Registrant and that it was not a single incident of dishonesty. The Panel noted that there was a lack of disclosure throughout the process commencing when the Registrant was first apprehended by police and subsequently not declaring the charges and convictions, as she should have, despite multiple opportunities to do so, and this in the Panels view compounded the seriousness of the concerns.

64. When considering the Registrant’s state of mind, the Panel had careful regard to the test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC and considered each limb of the test. The Panel determined that in all the circumstances the Registrant’s actions were, by the standards of ordinary decent people, dishonest. Accordingly, Particular 8 was proved.

 

Decision on Grounds

65. Having found all the facts proved against the Registrant in this matter, the Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved, individually or collectively, amounted to either, or both, the statutory grounds of Conviction and/or Misconduct.

66. In relation to the ground of Conviction, the Panel noted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who confirmed that the convictions found against the Registrant had to be sufficiently serious to amount to this ground. It also noted the Practice Note entitled ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’, in particular paragraphs 16 to 19, which state:

“16. The Panel’s task is to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned, and, if so, whether any sanction needs to be imposed…

17. In considering the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence, Panels need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the registrant’s actions bring the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in that profession. In doing so, Panels are entitled to adopt a 'retrospective' approach and consider the conviction as if the registrant was applying for registration with the HCPC. 

18. In reaching its decision, a Panel should also have regard to any punishment or other order imposed by the courts, but must bear in mind that the sentence imposed is not a definitive guide to the seriousness of an offence. Panels should not assume that a non-custodial sentence implies that an offence is not serious. One factor which may have led the court to be lenient is the expectation that the registrant would be subject to regulatory proceedings. In any event, the purpose of imposing sentences in criminal cases and sanctions in regulatory proceedings is different. 

19. As Dame Janet Smith noted in the Fifth Shipman Inquiry Report:
‘The fact that the court has imposed a very low penalty or even none at all should not lead the [regulator] to the conclusion that the case is not serious in the context of [its own] proceedings…The role of the [regulator] in protecting [service users] involves different considerations from those taken into account by the criminal courts when passing sentence…What may well appear relatively trivial in the context of general criminal law may be quite serious in the context of [professional] practice.” “16. The Panel’s task is to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned, and, if so, whether any sanction needs to be imposed…’.”

67. In relation to Misconduct, the Panel noted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the cases of Roylance v General Medical Council [2000] 1 A.C. 311, Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin), Nandi v. General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317, Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin). The Panel noted that misconduct must be serious and amount to a registrant’s conduct falling far below the standards expected of a registered Occupational Therapist in such a way that fellow practitioners would find her behaviour “deplorable”. It has also borne in mind that this is an objective test and that mitigation plays no part at this stage of the proceedings.

68. The Panel also noted the written submissions of Mr Maughan in his Case Summary regarding breaches of Standards, including those of the Registrant’s then employer, NYC, as follows:

“BREACH OF STANDARDS/GUIDANCE 
47. In respect of the Registrant’ initial arrest and charge, NYC’s Standards of Conduct Policy contains the following relevant provision applicable in this case: 
‘Updating 
Employees are required to verbally advise their Manager/Headteacher/Chair of Governors of any significant development (e.g. being charged with an offences following arrest, dates of court, appearances), producing a copy of the court or police document, where available, so that the situation can be kept under review’.
‘Failure to Report 
Failure to report, in a timely manner*, any conviction, Police caution*** (DBS posts only), Penalty Notice for Damage or Penalty Notice for Disorder, driving offence (where required), civil offence (where relevant), arrest, charge or summons may render the employee liable to disciplinary action’. 
48. Furthermore, the Registrant’s contract of employment with NYC…contains the following provision applicable in this case: 
‘21. Should you be convicted or cautioned* for any offence during your employment with the Council or receive a Penalty Notice for Damage or Penalty Notice for Disorder, you are required to immediately notify your line manager of the offence and the penalty. (For those who drive on business at any point during their employment (Authority’s vehicle or own vehicle), this includes all motoring offences dealt with through the courts and penalty points on driving licences - whether awarded by a court or through fixed penalty notices).The effect of your conviction or caution will be considered with regard to your post. (* The requirement to report cautions relates to DBS posts only)’. 
49. NYC’s Standards of Conduct…also contains the following relevant provision applicable in this case: 
‘7.4 Employees are required to report any conviction, Police caution (DBS posts only), Penalty Notice for Damage or Penalty Notice for Disorder, driving offence, civil offence, arrest, charge or summons in line with the County Council / School guidance, detailed in Appendix A of this policy’. 
50. Appendix A expands on this requirement contains the following relevant provision applicable in this case:
‘Convictions Received During Employment 
Employees are required to verbally report the following matters in a timely manner* to their Manager, Headteacher (or in the case of the Headteacher to the Chair of Governors), producing a copy of the court or police document, when available: 
- Any conviction 
- Any Police caution (DBS posts only) 
- Any Penalty Notice for Damage 
- Any Penalty Notice for those employees who drive on business at any time during their employment, this includes all motoring offences dealt with through the courts and penalty points on driving licences (whether awarded by a court or through fixed penalty notices)’. 
51. In respect of the definition of ‘in a timely manner’, this is addressed in the standards…and it is said to normally refer to the first attendance at work following the event. There are though stated exceptions to this e.g. where an employee is held in custody or takes pre-arranged leave immediately after the event, or in the case of schools where it is closed due to a holiday period. In such cases, the employee is advised to contact his/her manager at the first opportunity in order to relay this information. 
52. The HCPC’s 2016 Standards of Conduct and Performance contains the following relevant standards applicable in this case: 
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession; and 
9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if: 
- you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence 
53. The HCPC’s 2023 Proficiency Standards for Occupational Therapists contains the following relevant standards applicable in this case:
2.1 maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct; and 
2.4 understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council, including, but not limited to, the standards of conduct, performance and ethics 
54. It is the HCPC’s case that the Registrant acted in a way which fell far short of what is expected of a regulated practitioner in the circumstances. The public’s trust and confidence in the Registrant and the profession depends on there being an effective system of regulation. In this case, the Registrant failed to disclose from the outset and having later disclosed was not then open and honest with the full circumstances, a decision which had a direct impact on the Registrant’s ability to carry out her role for NYC. In acting as they did, the Registrant failed to adhere to the expected high standards of personal and professional conduct by committing offences of this nature and thereafter failing to act in accordance with her employment contract, her employer’s standards, the HCPC’s Proficiency Standards as well as the HCPC’s Conduct Standards. As such, the Registrant inhibited and prejudiced the system of regulation such that a finding of serious professional misconduct is required”. 

69. In addition, the Panel noted Mr Maughan’s amplifications in his oral submissions, as follows:

“Accordingly, you are considering a case where [the Registrant] has made a conscious decision over a period of time to try and sweep matters under the carpet, either hoping they would go away, and when they did not, unwilling to disclose the full extent of what happened on the basis of the impact this would have on her. What makes the actions, or indeed omissions, of [the Registrant] more serious is that element of dishonesty found proven, which the HCPC would submit is at odds with a key tenet of safe and effective registered practice, namely that registrants act with honesty and integrity, both in and out of their professional practice. This is an expectation held by fellow practitioners, patients and the wider public. 
It’s the HCPC’s case that in acting dishonestly in failing to disclose as soon as possible the full extent of the contact with the authorities, [the Registrant] has acted in a way which fell far short of what is expected of a regulated occupational therapist. She failed to disclose her charge and arrest to her employer and the HCPC, both of whom rely on honesty in order to maintain a safe and effective service. In failing to be open and honest with [NYC], both in terms of the timing and nature of the disclosure, there followed a direct and detrimental impact on not only the Registrant’s ability to effectively and efficiently carry out her driving role for [NYC], but an equally detrimental impact on the service [NYC] were trusted to provide. [the Registrant] has failed to provide any compelling reason as to why she did not disclose the driving offences, the additional driving offences, and so the Panel’s finding that there was dishonesty behind this decision, on the basis she would be in real difficulty should she admit that, is the only plausible conclusion to draw. 
In failing to be open and honest with the HCPC both in terms of timing and nature of disclosure, [the Registrant] prevented the HCPC from providing an effective service of regulation, a cornerstone in why the public can have trust and confidence in the regulatory process. Importantly, in respect of both the employer and the HCPC, [the Registrant] never actually informed either at any point about driving without and driving without a licence, despite understanding that these offences aggravated the drink driving offence. In acting as she did, [the Registrant] unfortunately failed to adhere to the expected high standards of personal and professional conduct as outlined in the 2016 Standards of Conduct and Performance…
…the Registrant has also failed to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct, as per 2.1 [and 2.4] of the HCPC’s Proficiency Standards for Occupational Therapists...[the Registrant] was arrested and charged with four serious offences, which concern lying to a police officer, and thereafter, in dishonestly failing to make this known to her employer and the HCPC, placed limited weight on the wide-ranging implications of this failure in favour of trying to limit the damage caused. 
By disclosing so little so late in the day, her actions fell far short of the obligations within her employment contract, her employee standards, and the HCPC’s Proficiency Standards, as well as the general conduct standards, which resulted in the trust and confidence which her employer had previously placed in her being extinguished, and her decision out of fear of what may result ultimately inhibited and prejudiced the system of regulation, such that the failures at particulars 5 to 8 do amount to serious professional misconduct in this case… 
As per the practice note on conviction allegations, the Panel need to be mindful that the process in respect of particulars 1 to 4 is not about punishing [the Registrant] twice for the same offence. These convictions should only lead to further action being taken against [the Registrant] if, as a consequence of those convictions, her fitness to practise is found to be impaired. The Panel’s role is to protect the public and maintain the high standards and reputation of the profession concerned”. 

70. At the resumed hearing on 18 December 2025 (having adjourned the case on 19 June 2025) the Registrant presented and adopted a statement of reflection and gave further oral evidence. However, the Registrant did not say anything significant about the statutory grounds.

Panel Decision

71. The Panel agrees with the Standards identified by Mr Maughan as having been breached. However, the Panel reminds itself that a mere breach of standards does not, in itself, engage the grounds of Conviction or Misconduct.

72. With respect to Particulars 1 to 4, the Panel was persuaded that they, individually and collectively, were so serious as to engage the statutory ground of conviction, for the following reasons:

73. Driving without a licence is serious since, potentially, the driver has either not passed a driving test or has been disqualified from driving. This, in turn, draws into question their competence as a driver and therefore poses a risk to other road users. 

74. Driving a car without insurance is serious since, if the driver was involved in a road accident which caused damage to another vehicle or injury to a person, potentially the injured party would be unable to claim compensation from the driver for such damage or injury.

75. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is serious since alcohol in a driver's system adversely affects their ability to drive safely, and therefore can cause damage to other motor vehicles or injury to other road users.

76. Finally, obstructing a police constable, by giving false information about one's identity, is serious because it involved the Registrant lying to a police constable. which is always a matter of great concern in a professional. Furthermore, giving false information obstructs the proper investigation of criminal activity, at the very least by wasting valuable police time.

77. Having found that the individual convictions were serious, in accordance with the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel moved on to assess whether, collectively, they were sufficiently serious as to engage the Statutory ground of Conviction. The Panel had no hesitation in concluding that, collectively, the convictions were sufficiently serious so as to engage that ground.

78. The Panel then went on to consider Particulars 5 to 7 to see whether they engaged the Statutory ground of Misconduct. It was satisfied that, individually, they were serious enough to engage that ground. This was because, in the first place, a failure to notify one’s employer of matters which potentially affected the employee’s ability to carry out their functions competently and safely, meant that the ability of the employer to ensure that it was delivering competent and safe healthcare was adversely affected. Second, a failure to notify the HCPC of criminal convictions meant that the ability of the regulator properly to monitor its registrants’ practices was also adversely affected, particularly with regard to the trust placed in the HCPC by the public to ensure that registrants are practising safely. 

79. In Relation to Particular 8, which alleges dishonest practice with regard to Particulars 5 to 7, the Panel was satisfied that, collectively, these matters engaged the Statutory ground of Misconduct. It accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that dishonesty in professionals is always a serious matter and furthermore, the Panel noted that dishonesty was referred to as serious in the Sanctions Policy. 

80. Accordingly, the Panel is drawn to the inevitable conclusion that the Registrant’s actions were, both individually and collectively, serious and that her behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered Occupational Therapist and therefore engaged the Statutory grounds of Conviction and Misconduct. 

 

Decision on Impairment

81. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel has taken account of the submissions of Mr Maughan, the additional evidence of the Registrant and the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has also taken account of the HCPC Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. 

82. The Panel is aware that, in determining whether fitness to practise is impaired, it must take account of a range of issues which, in essence, comprise two components, namely the ‘personal’ component (the current competence and behaviour of the individual Registrant) and the ‘public’ component (the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession). It appreciates that not every finding of misconduct will automatically result in a Panel concluding that fitness to practice is impaired. Moreover, it cannot adopt a simplistic view and conclude that fitness to practise is not impaired simply on the basis that, since the allegation arose, a Registrant has corrected matters or “learned their lesson”. Although the Panel’s task is not to punish past wrongdoings, it does need to take account of past acts or omissions in determining whether a Registrant’s present fitness to practise is impaired. In addition, when assessing the likelihood of a Registrant causing similar harm in the future, the Panel should take account of both the degree of harm, if any, caused by a Registrant and that Registrant’s culpability for that harm. Finally, the Panel is to consider whether a Registrant has demonstrated insight into their attitude and failings.

83. The Panel noted Mr Maughan’s written submissions contained in his Case Summary:

“IMPAIRMENT 
51. Whether the proven facts amount to impairment of current fitness to practise is a matter of judgement for the Committee and the HCPC does not propose to present any separate evidence on this issue. 
52. When considering the personal component of fitness to practise impairment, the Panel should first consider whether the acts which led to the allegation are remediable. Whilst it is accepted that the conduct alleged in the particulars may be remediable and whilst the Registrant has demonstrated remorse and some insight, this appears to be limited insight and/or still developing. A key consideration will be whether the Registrant has completed the course to reduce the length of her disqualification from driving and whether any other courses outlined [A Leadership and Management Course Level 5] have reduced the risk of repetition. 
53. Considering the public component, it is submitted that there is an ongoing risk to service users should a finding of impairment not be made, particularly due to the nature of the offences and concerns about the Registrant failing to disclose promptly or at all. 
54. It is further submitted that public confidence in the occupational therapist profession and the HCPC as its regulator would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in a case where a Registrant had failed to notify the employer and regulator that they had been convicted of various offences, particularly if they were found to be dishonest in not doing so. 
55. A finding of impairment is required in this case in order to declare and maintain professional standards due to the Registrant’s convictions and subsequent failure to disclose them as soon as possible. 
56. Accordingly, it is the HCPC’s position based on the evidence available, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired based on both the personal and public component…”.
84. Mr Maughan added further oral submissions as follows: 
“In assessing impairment today, the Panel will consider two broad components...Firstly, the personal component, the current competence, behaviour of the registrant concerned. And secondly, the public component, the critically important public policy issues of protecting service users, declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour, and maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned. 
When considering the personal component, first of all, of fitness to practise impairment, the Panel should first consider whether the acts which led to the allegation are remediable. Whilst it is accepted that the allegations in the particulars may be remediable, and whilst the Registrant has demonstrated a degree of remorse, it is noticeable that there is an obvious absence of remedial action and insight, particularly as to the acceptance of the impact of her failure on [NYC] which at the time was not considered a priority, and instead, her fears, reputation and own personal situation prevented her from honest and timely disclosure This undoubtedly had an impact on her work output and the service provided by [NYC], which ultimately is in place to serve and protect the public. 
Whilst undoubtedly, the decision of [the Registrant] to plead guilty to the offences demonstrates a degree of insight, the fact she has not completed the drink driving course to reduce the length of her disqualification from driving or provide any evidence as to remedial action, there exists a real risk of repetition should these personal issues arise again in the future. The decision to not complete the course is a real concern for the HCPC, as this presented an ideal opportunity for [the Registrant] to understand the obvious dangers involved in drink driving, which would have put the public first, and thus obviously a good, solid step towards remediation. 
Moving on to the public component, it’s submitted that there is an ongoing risk to patients should a finding of impairment not be made, particularly due to the seriousness of driving whilst drunk without insurance or without a licence, and thereafter failing to be open and honest when serious errors of judgement have been made, especially when driving was an essential ingredient of the role. It’s further submitted that if a registrant makes a decision to drive a vehicle with a passenger whilst almost three times over the drink drive limit, the decision is so inherently serious and such that the public would expect the regulator to take action. That is even before a further consideration of the associated act of dishonesty to the police officer, employer and HCPC is considered, as evident in this case. 
With the totality of the misconduct considered, the HCPC submit that public confidence in the occupational therapist profession and the HCPC as its regulator would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in this case, and only by a finding of impairment can the profession maintain and declare its professional standards, which ultimately are in place to serve the public and deter others. Accordingly, it’s the HCPC’s position, based on the Panel’s findings and the evidence in the case, that [the Registrant]’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, based on both the personal and public components”.

85. At the resumed hearing on 18 December 2025, the Registrant submitted a statement of reflections which read as follows:
[Redacted].

86. The Registrant also chose to give oral testimony on Oath. [Redacted].

87. [Redacted]
88. [Redacted]
89. [Redacted].
90. [Redacted].
91. [Redacted]
92. [Redacted].
93. [Redacted]. 
94. [Redacted].
95. [Redacted].
96. [Redacted].
97. [Redacted]

The Personal Component

98. The Panel first of all considered the personal component. It noted that the Registrant has fully engaged with the HCPC and with this process, attending the hearing and representing herself. In addition, at the resumed hearing she presented detailed written reflections to the Panel and was quite prepared to answer questions on oath regarding what remediation she has undertaken. Moreover, the Panel accepts that the Registrant is very remorseful. In addition, parts of her written reflection do demonstrate that she seems to have, in particular, a good understanding of the effects of her actions, in failing to notify her employer and the HCPC, upon those organisations and on the public. Consequently, on the face of it, the Registrant has made some efforts to demonstrate that she has attempted remediation regarding her failings, and that she has some insight.

99. The Panel took into account the Practice Note entitled ‘Fitness to practise impairment’ and the guidance therein as to how to approach the question of impairment and evaluation of the personal component. It noted from paragraph 27 of that Practice Note that it might be helpful to ask itself certain questions, such as: 

a. are the acts or omissions which led to the allegation remediable? 
b. has the registrant taken remedial action? 
c. are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated?

100. The Practice Note continues as follows:

“28. There are some cases, including those involving serious attitudinal or behavioural issues, which may be more difficult to remediate or where public confidence in the profession…requires a finding of impairment to be made. 
29. An important factor will be the registrant’s insight into those acts or omissions and the extent to which the registrant: 
a. accepts that their behaviour fell below professional standards, understands how and why it occurred and its consequences for those affected; and 
b. can demonstrate they have taken action to address that failure in a manner which remedies any issue and avoids or mitigates against any future repetition. 
30. Insight is concerned with future risk of repetition. It is different to remorse for past misconduct and it is wrong to equate maintenance of innocence with lack of insight”.

101. The Panel first of all considered whether or not the Registrant's failings were remediable. In relation to the Conviction matters, the Panel considered that they were relatively easily remediable on the basis that the Registrant had to demonstrate that she had insight into why she committed the offences and had taken steps to ensure that there would be no repetition. In relation to the Dishonesty matters, the Panel noted paragraph 28 of the Practice Note which indicated that failings “involving serious attitudinal or behavioural issues…may be more difficult to remediate”. The Panel was of the view that dishonesty fell into this category and that, although it was not impossible, dishonesty was much more difficult to remedy and would require a lot of hard work.

102. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant had taken remedial action. It acknowledged that she appeared to have made some attempt at remedial action but considered that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate this to any significant degree. In her written reflections, the Registrant had indicated that, for instance, she had undertaken counselling but did not provide any other details about it nor had she indicated how counselling had helped her or what she had learned from it in relation to her failings. Similarly, the Registrant referred to attending a Level 5 course on Leadership and Management, in which there was a module relating to dishonesty, but, once again, she had not presented to the Panel any details about the module or any reflections about the course or how it had helped her either gain insight into her dishonesty or remediate that failing.

103. In addition, the Panel noted that, although such courses existed, the Registrant had not availed herself of the opportunity of attending, for instance, a Duty of Candour course, which would have been of significant use in helping the Registrant understand why she had acted dishonestly. Furthermore, in relation to her Conviction for drunk driving, the Panel noted that the Registrant had decided not to attend the drink driving course that had been offered to her, notwithstanding that it likely would have given her significant insight into the ramifications of driving whilst drunk. The Panel noted the explanation provided by the Registrant for not attending the course in her written reflections, but was not persuaded by them; the Panel was of the view that attending such a course would have been significantly beneficial to her remediation and well worth any inconvenience and/or hardship that attending the course might have caused.

104. In addition, when considering the question of the Registrant’s insight into her failings, although the Panel accepted that the Registrant understands that her behaviour had fallen well below professional standards. However, it also considered that, for instance, the Registrant had not demonstrated that she understood how and/or why she drove the car whilst under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, although it noted the reasons put forward by her as to why she gave false details to the police constable and in delaying notification to her employer and to the HCPC of her arrest and/or conviction for the driving offences, the Panel considered that these were superficial and did not properly address the underlying issues which caused her to act in this way. For instance, it appears implausible to the Panel that, having been charged with a criminal offence in relation to her lying to the police officers about her identity, the Registrant would apparently act dishonestly once again by going on to deliberately delay reporting those charges and her conviction to her employer and to the HCPC. This strongly suggests to the Panel that there was a significant underlying attitudinal problem which the Registrant simply has not addressed.

105. The Panel acknowledges that the Registrant has submitted at least one reference from February 2024, but it notes that nowhere in that reference does the referee mention that she was aware of the Allegations faced by the Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel is unable to attach any real weight to this reference. Moreover, although the Registrant indicates in her written reflections that she is performing well at work and has achieved promotion, there is no independent corroboration of this, nor are there any references from her current employer or line manager attesting to her performance or even commenting upon her honesty. The Panel appreciates that, being unrepresented, the Registrant might not have considered the provision of such corroboration important, but the lack of such prevents the Panel from fully accepting what the Registrant says about her current practice. 

106. In addition, the Panel considers that the Registrant appears to have only a superficial understanding of the consequences of her actions upon not only service users and members of the public, but also upon her employer, her colleagues and the HCPC. Moreover, the Panel found that, in her oral evidence (as set out above), the Registrant struggled to answer the question as to what she would do in the future if faced with the same situation regarding driving having consumed alcohol, and what she had done to ensure that she would not repeat her behaviour in this regard. 

107. In conclusion, therefore, the Panel finds that the Registrant is impaired on a Personal basis mainly because of a lack of insight and extremely limited evidence of remediation. The Panel notes that the Registrant has not given any significant explanations why she committed the offences she was convicted of or why she acted dishonestly on more than one occasion. It therefore is drawn to the conclusion that the Registrant is unable to understand what went wrong or how she should have acted differently. This, in turn, affects the question of whether she can, in the future, ensure that what she did does not happen again. Consequently, the Panel considers that there remains a significant risk of repetition of the Registrant’s behaviour.
Public Component

108. Accordingly, in relation to the Public component, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s criminality and misconduct, especially as they remain un-remediated, were such that the need to declare and uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were also not made in these circumstances. The Panel believes that a right-minded member of the public, with full knowledge of all of the circumstances, would be concerned if a finding of current impairment were not made. 

Decision on Sanction

109. In reaching its decision on sanction the Panel took account of all the documentary evidence it had received; the submissions of Mr Maughan; the Sanctions Policy (‘SP’) document; and the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it accepted. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, although they may have that effect. It appreciated that the primary purpose of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which the registrant concerned may pose to those who use or need their services. It noted, however, that in reaching its decision, panels must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes: protection of the public; the deterrent effect to other registrants; the reputation of the profession concerned; public confidence in the regulatory process; and ensuring that professional standards are upheld. In addition, the Panel noted that it must act proportionately, which requires it to strike a balance between the interests of the public and those of the Registrant.

110. The Panel reminded itself of its assessment of the facts found proved for the purposes of establishing the statutory grounds of Conviction and Misconduct and that it had found impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise on both personal and public interest grounds. 

HCPC Submissions

111. Mr Maughan confirmed that the Registrant had no previous FTP history. Further, he submitted that it was not the practice of the HCPC to make a “sanctions bid”. He referred to the SP and addressed the Panel in accordance with a written note, which the Panel has duplicated since it is extremely comprehensive regarding the factors that it has to consider at this stage; they stated:

“It is not for the HCPC to recommend a sanction rather signpost to the relevant policy and guidance as well as signpost to the case specific elements on this case which may assist the Panel in deciding which sanction you feel is ultimately appropriate and proportionate.
In determining what sanction, if any, is appropriate, the panel should start by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. 
A key consideration in imposing any sanction is to protect the public and maintain public confidence both within the profession and beyond.
Sanctions should only be imposed in relation to the facts found proved, but should address all of those facts which have led to a finding of impairment which includes the basis on which the decision on impairment was made. 
In relation to this case, the HCPC invite the panel to consider para 56 of the Sanction policy which covers serious cases which includes dishonesty cases and the following key considerations:
1) Given the seriousness of dishonest, cases are likely to result in more serious sanctions

2) Panel’s should bear in mind that there are different forms and different degrees of dishonesty that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way

The form and degree can be considered with reference to the following:
Whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act or occurred on multiple occasions
In this case whilst the dishonesty arguably stems from the same incident, [the Registrant] was dishonest…in respect of her disclosure to both the employer and HCPC and thus it can be said that [the Registrant] was dishonest on[more than one] one occasion.
The duration of any dishonesty
The panel have evidence that disclosure of the drink drive charge to the HCPC and employer occurred after 43 and 31 days respectively. In respect of disclosure of the drink drive conviction to the HCPC this took place 15 days after being convicted. At no stage did [the Registrant] inform the HCPC or employer that she had been charged and convicted for driving without a licence and insurance which was arguably an extension of dishonest actions which began when she lied to the police at the roadside.
Whether the registrant took a passive or active role in it
The HCPC submit that [the Registrant] played an active role in the dishonesty given she has provided reasons as to why she did not feel she could disclose which included the impact on her reputation, finances and importantly how her decision to drive without insurance, a licence and under the influence put her partners leave to remain in the country at significant risk as she would not be able to evidence 6 months bank statements if she lost her job. The panel’s assessment is that there is a significant underlying attitudinal problem in respect of being dishonest which is likely to cause a degree of concern to the panel in this case.
Any early admission of dishonesty on the registrant’s behalf
Dishonesty was a disputed issue in this case
Any other relevant mitigating factors
The [Registrant] has undoubtedly shown a degree of remorse as to the particulars regarding her lack of disclosure to the employer and HCPC, particularly following the questions of the panel put to her regarding the impact of her actions on the Council.
However, I think it is important to for the panel to note that it remains arguable that there is a concerning lack of insight and remediation, which has been properly scrutinised by the panel in their decision. An example being in respect of scope of the criminal case (ie. not just driving under the influence but 3 further offences), her reasons for not completing the drink drive course which was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate remediation and understanding as to the risks when you drink drive.
It is noticeable that [the Registrant] has on more than one occasion grouped the offences together under the drink drive offence when in fact these 3 further offences made the incident more serious. Her failure to delve into her actions in respect of each offence presents a concern as to whether she has been able to demonstrate real insight into the conduct which led to 4 convictions and a lengthy driving ban.
Moving onto the sanctions:
The most lenient sanction involves no action being taken. However, given the Panel have found dishonesty on 3 separate occasions and consider that there remains a significant risk of repetition of [the Registrant] behaviour, the Panel will need to consider whether taking no action sufficiently addresses the findings and indeed the risk in this case.
The next available sanction is that of a caution order for a period between 1-5 years which as per the sanction policy is likely to be appropriate for cases in which the issue is isolated, limited, relatively minor in nature and there is a low risk of repetition based on the registrant showing good insight and when they have undertaken appropriate remediation. 
A caution order should be considered in cases where meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed but a suspension order would be disproportionate.
The Panel may consider whether a serious finding of dishonesty in the context of lack of timely disclosure of criminal proceedings to the employer and/or HCPC and lack [of] disclosure at all in respect of other matters, alongside 4 convictions, can be safely considered as being of limited seriousness and commensurate with the sanction of a caution order.
The 3rd available option is a conditions of practice order for a period up to 3 years, which is likely to be appropriate in the following cases 
When a Registrant has insight
The HCPC submit which aligns with the panel, that [the Registrant] has demonstrated some insight.
The HCPC take this view given she pleaded guilty at Court, made various admissions at the outset of the hearing and showed a degree of remorse and some understanding of her actions during her live evidence under affirmation provided during the final hearing. You have also heard evidence, in both written and documentary form yesterday regarding insight which the panel can consider and weigh up as to the real level of insight.
Where the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied
The HCPC submit that it is likely the failures in this case are capable of being remedied through hard work and dedication.
Where there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating
The HCPC submit that whilst there were several acts, they do arise from the same event namely the decision to drive without insurance, a licence and whilst under the influence of alcohol.
Appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated
This would be a matter for the panel to determine
Where the panel is confident the Registrant will comply with the conditions and is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised
The Registrant has fully engaged throughout the hearing and has demonstrated some appetite to change, be better and resolve the concerns raised
Where a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met
There is limited evidence to suggest a reviewing panel would be unable to properly assess compliance
And where the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice
There does not appear to be any compelling evidence that the any identifiable risk of harm could not be safely mitigated by conditions.
The policy states that such an order is unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the Registrant has failed to engage with the FTP process or where there are serious or persistent failings
Again, [the Registrant] has engaged fully throughout the hearing and has come across open and honest in her reflection even though it has been somewhat lacking in depth.
The 4th option available is a suspension order for up to 1 year which prohibits a registrant from practising their profession. 
This is likely to be appropriate when conditions cannot address the concerns but a striking off is not required. 
The examples provided in the policy as to when a suspension may be appropriate are:-
The concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics
This is a matter for the panel however it is noted that dishonesty cases are serious cases and that dishonest significantly impacts regulated practices, particularly in healthcare, where honesty is fundamental to professionalism. The registrant has insight
The Registrant has shown some degree of insight but with the caveat above
The issues are unlikely to be repeated
There is evidence that [the Registrant] may have learnt from a serious lapse in judgment back in August 2023 which was made worse by her dishonest actions thereafter and appears to acknowledge and have some understanding as to why honest disclosure to the HCPC and employer is important within registered practice and how and why her conduct impacted on the service users, the profession and the wider public. However, given the limited insight into the conviction matters especially having not completed the drink drive course, there does remain a question mark as to how the Registrant has learnt from her decisions on 14th August 2023
There is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings
The HCPC submit that the panel do have evidence from [the Registrant] herself that if given the opportunity, she is likely to be able to resolve or remedy her poor and detrimental decisions in 2023.
The 5th and final option available to the Panel is a striking off order which is reserved for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving behaviour which includes dishonesty cases. 
However, the policy suggest that 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 particularly where 
A registrant lacks insight
The Registrant has shown some insight as previously highlighted
A Registrant continues to repeat the misconduct
There is no evidence that there has been a repeat instead there is evidence [the Registrant] has been open and honest in new employment. However, the panel have found that there remains a significant risk of repetition of [the Registrant] ‘s behaviour.
Where a Registrant is unwilling to resolve matters
There is arguably limited compelling evidence that [the Registrant] could be said to be unwilling to resolve matters
In the current case and in light of all the circumstances, the Panel may find that there are alternative lesser sanctions than a strike off which are indeed sufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence and offer a deterrent to others.”

The Registrant’s Submissions

112. The Registrant made the following submissions. She once again sincerely apologised and confirmed that she realised that her behaviour had fallen short of the standards expected. She stated that since August 2023, she had had a lot of time to reflect. She disagreed with the Panel that her current employer had not confirmed that it supported the Registrant since a letter from her current employer had been presented to the panel in June 2025. The Panel was advised that, although it was not in the documentation before it, it had been presented as an exhibit and the Panel was given a copy of it.

113. The Panel noted that the letter, which was received on 19 June 2025 during the previous hearing, was from Chinwe Vivian Madu, who was a Highly Specialist Physiotherapist/Team Lead and that it stated:
“I would like to make the statement to support Hellen during the hearing.
Hellen was interviewed by myself and another colleague and during her application she disclosed all the convictions that appeared on her DBS.
During interview, we also asked her about the convictions and she discussed this further and we were happy to get her on board .
Since joining the team in 2024. She has been a dedicated member of the team who has shown a passion to her profession and insured that she is maintaining the HCPC standards with no concerns and when I discussed with Hellen about the current situation she reported that this has always been discussed in supervision with her previous supervisor who is no longer with the team.
In a short period of time, Hellen managed to progress to a team lead position due to her dedication and her passion within the team. We recruited her as a band 6 specialist occupational therapist, she is now a band 7 Highly special occupational therapist Team lead which demonstrates evidence of her ability to progress in the profession. She has been a great asset and we would like to support her through this process by stating that it is rare to find professionals like Hellen who are polite, never had any complaints with patients or team members and goes above and beyond..
I would like to give a true testament that having Hellen in the team, she is a valued team lead, she is passionate about what she does and it will be a huge loss if anything happened to her ability to practice.
If you require any information, please contact me on this work email”.

114. [Redacted]. 

Consideration of Sanction 

115. The Panel took into account the various mitigating and aggravating factors suggested by the parties. These factors were as follows:

Mitigating Factors
(i) The Registrant had no previous adverse regulatory history; this was an isolated set of incidents in an otherwise blemish free career;
(ii) There were no concerns about the Registrant’s abilities as a clinician, or as an employee, and the letter from her current employers which was produced at the previous hearing has confirmed this;
(iii) The Registrant had expressed extensive remorse and had apologised for her actions;
(iv) There has been no repetition of the misconduct (including the criminal offences).
(v) She pleaded guilty to the criminal charges and made admissions during this hearing;
(vi) She had some insight, although the Panel considered that it was limited;
(vii) The Registrant had engaged fully with this process and had indicated that she would do so again in the future if necessary;
(viii) At the time of the incidents, she was under significant pressure in her private life, although the Panel did not attach much weight to this as it did not consider that personal difficulties were any excuse for dishonesty.

Aggravating factors
(i) The Registrant’s misconduct indicated attitudinal issues regarding honesty, which have not been fully addressed by the Registrant, particularly in respect of her failure to explain why she acted as she did or why she repeated her dishonesty; 
(ii) Her misconduct constituted a breach of trust with her then employer, which continued until the time of the hearing; 
(iii) Accordingly, there remains a risk of repetition;
(iv) The Registrant’s misconduct falls within a category (“Dishonesty”) that the SP indicates may warrant a more serious sanction.

Panel Decision

116. Although the Registrant has not fully explained why she decided to drive her car whilst under the influence of alcohol and with no licence or insurance in place, the Panel’s principal attention when considering sanction has been focused on the dishonesty allegations which were the subject of Particulars 5, 6 and 7 (the dishonesty aspect of Particular 4, obstructing a police constable, not being specifically referred to in Particular 8). The Panel noted that the Registrant has been punished already for her criminality and, given that any dishonesty element arising from the criminal proceedings would be subsumed into the Panel’s consideration of the remaining dishonesty matters and that there has been no repetition of such criminality, it did not consider that any further specific sanction was required with respect to the convictions.

117. The Panel first considered taking No Action. The Panel considered that, because of the seriousness of the misconduct found, this would not be appropriate since it would not adequately protect the public or reflect the public interest.

118. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. The Panel noted paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a Caution Order was likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which the issue was isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature; where there was a low risk of repetition; and where a registrant had shown good insight and had undertaken appropriate remediation. The Panel considered that almost none of these criteria applied to the Registrant's case. Although the driving incident could be described as isolated and limited, the misleading of her then-employer and of the HCPC, spanned a significant period of time. The Panel did not consider the Registrant’s dishonesty to be “relatively minor in nature”; the Panel considered that there was a real risk of repetition; the Registrant had shown limited insight; and there was limited evidence of appropriate remediation. The Panel therefore concluded that a Caution Order was not appropriate.

119. The Panel then moved on to consider a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel noted paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a Conditions of Practice Order is likely to be appropriate in cases, inter alia, where a registrant has insight; the failings or deficiencies are capable of being remedied; there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent a registrant from remediating; appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated; and the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions.

120. The Panel noted in particular Mr Maughan’s submissions on the issue of conditions of practice, which it considered were extremely fair. The Panel agreed with his observations that the Registrant has some, albeit limited, insight; her dishonesty is capable of being remedied through hard work and dedication; that, although there were several acts, it was arguable that they arose from the same event namely the decision to drive without insurance, a licence and whilst under the influence of alcohol, which in turn meant that there were no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating; since the Registrant has fully engaged throughout the hearing and has demonstrated some appetite “to change, be better and resolve the concerns raised”, the Panel could be confident that the Registrant would comply with conditions and would be genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised; a reviewing panel would be able to determine whether or not the conditions had or were being met, since there was limited evidence to the contrary; and there did not appear to be any compelling evidence that any identifiable risk of harm could not be safely mitigated by conditions, particularly since there were no clinical concerns regarding the Registrant. 

121. However, the Panel also noted that, in its view, the Registrant’s insight was limited and there remained concerns regarding what the Panel saw as her attitudinal issues regarding dishonesty, which remained un-remediated. Finally, the Panel noted the provisions of paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which indicated that conditions were less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving Dishonesty.

122. The Panel did spend a significant amount of time deliberating whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order on the Registrant in relation to the remaining issue of Dishonesty. It acknowledged that any greater sanction would deprive patients of an otherwise good and dedicated clinician. However, conversely, this meant that there were no clinical issues to address and consequently the Panel considered that it would struggle to formulate appropriate conditions, especially since a Conditions of Practice Order would not necessarily address the seriousness of the Registrant’s Misconduct, and therefore, the public interest. 

123. Taking all these factors into consideration the Panel concluded that a conditions of practice order would not be the appropriate sanction in the Registrant’s case.

124. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Suspension Order. It noted that, at paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy, it was stated that a suspension order was likely to be appropriate where there were serious concerns which could not reasonably be addressed by a conditions of practice order but which did not require the registrant to be struck off the register. These types of cases would typically exhibit factors such as: the concerns represented a serious breach of the standards of conduct performance and ethics; the registrant had insight; the issues were unlikely to be repeated; and there is evidence to suggest that a registrant was likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

125. Once again, the Panel found Mr Maughan’s submissions on the subject of a Suspension Order to be of assistance. The Registrant’s Misconduct did represent a serious breach of the standards of conduct performance and ethics; although it could not be said the Registrant had full insight, there was limited insight; with respect to the likelihood of repetition, Mr Maughan had indicated that there was some evidence that the Registrant may have learned from her serious lapse in judgement in August 2023 and had appeared to acknowledge and have some understanding as to why honest disclosure to the HCPC and her employer was important - however, the Panel had found that there was a likelihood of repetition given the limited remediation. 

126. The Panel found that it was in agreement with most of Mr Maughan's observations. It also considered that, although the Registrant’s Misconduct represented a serious breach of the standards of conduct, performance and ethics, at this stage it did not require the Registrant to be struck off the register since there was some evidence that she would take the opportunity of using the term of the suspension to develop further insight and to demonstrate additional remediation. In addition, a period of suspension for breach of such a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely, to be honest, would satisfy the public interest.

127. The Panel therefore considered that a Suspension Order, with a review, would be a fair, appropriate and proportionate outcome and would give the Registrant a chance to demonstrate greater insight and remediation. 

128. The Panel has considered the possibility of a Striking Off Order. It noted paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a striking off order was a sanction of last resort for “serious, persistent, deliberate and/or reckless acts” involving, for instance, Discrimination. The Panel considered that, although the misconduct found proved was serious, and although there was an element of persistence to it, it has not been repeated with her current employer, to whom full disclosure of the Registrant’s criminality was made. 

129. Furthermore, the Panel took account of paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy, which stated that a Striking Off order was 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; and that, in particular it was appropriate where a registrant lacked insight, continued to repeat the misconduct or is unwilling to resolve matters. The Panel considered that, currently, a lesser sanction was available which would be sufficient to protect the public and public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, namely a Suspension Order. Furthermore, the Registrant had some, albeit limited, insight; had not repeated the misconduct since obtaining her current employment; and there was evidence that she was willing to resolve matters. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order was not the appropriate or proportionate sanction at this stage.

130. The Panel therefore determined to make a Suspension Order for a period of six months. The Panel considered that this length of time was, in any event, appropriate to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, and would give her adequate opportunity to address the Panel’s concerns regarding her lack of insight and lack of remediation in relation to her misconduct.

131. The Panel has also decided to direct that a review take place towards the end of the period of suspension and would suggest to the Registrant that, whilst this Panel cannot direct what a future reviewing panel should do, a future panel would be assisted by the Registrant providing evidence that: 

• she has attended a course on the Duty of Candour; 

• she has reflected upon the Panel’s concerns, has developed greater insight (particularly by providing further reflections regarding any motivation for her dishonesty) and what additional remediation of her misconduct has taken place. 

• up to date references or testimonials which speak to not only her current practise, but also to her honesty.

132. The Panel appreciates that a suspension for such a length of time will have an adverse short-term effect upon the Registrant’s life and might even have long-term consequences (including being dismissed from her current employment) but at the same time the Panel places greater emphasis on the public interest in an appropriate outcome in this case. 

133. The Panel therefore concluded that a Suspension Order for a period of six months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case. The Panel considered that it took account of the wider public interest, which includes: the protection of the public; the deterrent effect to other registrants; the reputation of the profession concerned; public confidence in the regulatory process; and ensuring that professional standards are upheld. 

 

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ms Hellin Wachepa for a period of 6 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

This Order will take effect on 16 January 2026 and will expire on 16 July 2026.

History of Hearings for Hellen Wachepa

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
18/12/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended
16/06/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard