Stephen Newton

Preliminary Matters

Service of Notice

1. The Notice of Hearing (‘NOH’) was sent to the Registrant at the electronic address (‘e-mail’) as held by the HCPC, on 13 November 2025. The NOH contained the date and time of today’s hearing and informed the Registrant of the HCPC’s intention to hold the hearing virtually, by video conference.

2. A ‘delivery receipt’ was also requested by the HCPC, for the delivery of the email to the Registrant’s email address, and a copy of the ‘delivery receipt’, dated 13 November 2025 and timed at 13:24, was produced for the Panel’s consideration.

3. The Panel also had sight of two emails from the Registrant, dated 16 November 2025, timed at 20:28, and 06 December 2025, timed at 19.30pm. The emails stated:
16 November 2025:
‘Hi
I just wanted to confirm that I will not be attending the hearing or be represented in any way.
Regards,
Steve Newton’

06 December 2025:
‘…As I am not contesting this hearing I will not be attending and therefore will not be represented and don’t require a test call…’

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it also had regard to the aforementioned correspondence from the Registrant which confirmed that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that the NOH had been properly served on the Registrant and that the notice period was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the Health Professions Order 2001 and the HCPC (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (hereafter ‘the Rules’).
Proceeding in the Registrant’s Absence

5. Mr Doyle, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Mr Doyle submitted that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing and submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s future attendance.

6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who had drawn the Panel’s attention, amongst other things, to: the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Proceeding in Absence of the Registrant’; Adeogba v GMC [2016] EWCA Civ 162; and R v Hayward & Ors [2001] 3 WLR 125.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the NOH was sent to the Registrant’s registered e-mail on 13 November 2025. The Panel considered that the HCPC had made all reasonable efforts to serve the NOH on the Registrant and that the Registrant had been informed of the date, time and venue of the hearing.

8. The Panel was also satisfied, further to the Registrant’s email correspondence, that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing.

9. Having satisfied itself that the Registrant had been properly notified of the hearing, the Panel formed the view that the Registrant’s non-attendance was voluntary and should be considered as a waiver of his right to participate in person. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel noted the contents of the Registrant’s emails that he would not be attending the hearing. Having regard to this, the Panel considered that adjourning today’s hearing to an alternative date, would be highly unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at the hearing.

10. Further, the Panel also considered whether the Registrant would be caused any disadvantage should it determine to proceed in his absence. The Panel noted that it was the Registrant’s application for voluntary removal from the HCPC Register that the Panel was being asked to consider. The Registrant had been provided with an opportunity to make written submissions and he had not availed himself of this opportunity. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant would not be unduly disadvantaged or prejudiced, or see himself to be so, should it determine to proceed in his absence.

11. Additionally, the Panel considered that it was in both parties’ interests, and in line with its overarching objective of considering matters before it expeditiously, that the hearing should proceed today.

12. Having regard to all of the above, the Panel considered that it was both fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

13. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist (‘OT’) with the HCPC.

14. The Registrant was previously employed by South Tyneside Council (“the Council”) as an OT. On 15 March 2024, the Council made a referral to the HCPC in respect of the following concerns.

15. On 9 June 2023, Adult A telephoned the Council’s corporate feedback team to request a different Occupational Therapist, stating that he was unhappy with the level of care he had received from the Registrant over the previous 18 months.

16. The Registrant’s practice supervisor, Alison Docchar, was concerned about this feedback and on 15 June 2023 visited Adult A and his wife, Adult B, at home. Ms Docchar described Adults A and B as a “family in crisis” and put in place a plan for various actions to be undertaken to assist them. During this visit, Adult A also disclosed to Ms Docchar that the Registrant had said to him during a visit on 9 March 2023 “we can just fill you full of Baclofen, you will turn to jelly and just die.”

17. The Registrant was suspended from work on 29 August 2023 due to the concerns raised. An internal investigation was then conducted by Stefanie Simpson, Operations Manager and Principal Occupational Therapist, at the Council. Ms Simpson submitted an investigation report on 29 November 2023.

18. On 7 December 2023, the Registrant attended a disciplinary hearing. At the disciplinary hearing, the disciplinary chair raised concerns about the Registrant’s lack of record keeping and the lack of evidence to support his reasoning for decisions and omissions. The disciplinary chair arranged an independent review of the Registrant’s cases from 2019. This was conducted by Jeanette Penman, Principal Social Worker. The audit showed a poor standard of record keeping in the Registrant’s case notes.

19. On 19 January 2024, the Registrant was dismissed from his role. The Registrant appealed his dismissal, but the dismissal was upheld.

20. In May 2024, the HCPC instructed Blake Morgan LLP (solicitors acting on its behalf) to conduct the investigation into the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

21. On 10 May 2024, an Investigating Committee Panel (‘ICP’) imposed an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months. This was reviewed and confirmed on 11 November 2024, 31 March 2025 and 25 July 2025. On 3 November 2025, the order was extended for a period of 6 months by consent in the High Court to 10 May 2026.

22. On 28 May 2025, the substantive matter was considered by an ICP, who requested that amendments be made to the draft Allegation (specifically to allege lack of competence as well as misconduct) and that the Registrant’s response to the Allegation be included.

23. On 4 June 2025, in response to the Case Investigation Report and bundle of documents, the Registrant sent an email to Blake Morgan LLP and stated the following:

a. He “freely admits the case” and that his record keeping was “sub-standard”;
b. He has no wish to re-engage with Occupational Therapy, social services or adult care;
c. He is willing to be struck off the register; and
d. He is no longer working in care and is now working as a private hire driver.

24. On 21 August 2025, an ICP considered the matter again and found a case to answer. It referred the Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee (‘CCC’), set out in the Notice of Allegation, dated 28 August 2025.

25. On 28 August 2025, Blake Morgan emailed the Registrant to notify him of the ICP’s decision. In light of the Registrant’s previous response, Blake Morgan included information on the VRA process and a blank consensual disposal pro forma for the Registrant to complete.

26. On 8 September 2025, the Registrant returned his completed pro forma in which he admitted the Allegation and that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and lack of competence. The Registrant confirmed that he has read the relevant Practice Note and that he wants to dispose of the case via a Voluntary Removal Agreement (‘VRA’).

Submissions

HCPC

27. Mr Doyle drew the Panel’s attention to the background of the case and the HCPC’s skeleton argument and in summary, submitted the following:
i. the Registrant has provided a consensual disposal pro forma dated 8 September 2025 in which he admits the substance of the Allegation;
ii. the Registrant provided a VRA form, dated 2 December 2025;
iii. the Registrant has no desire to practise as an OT in the future and has ceased working in this capacity;
iv. the Registrant admits that his fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of the Allegation;
v. voluntary removal adequately protects the public because the Registrant would be removed from the HCPC register and would not be able to seek to return to work within a period of five years. At this point he would need to demonstrate that he had fully remediated his failing;
vi. voluntary removal adequately protects the public as the Registrant would be removed from the HCPC register and would not be entitled to practise;
vii. the Registrant has confirmed that he no longer wishes to practise as an OT; and
viii. voluntary removal is not detrimental to the wider public interest as there is no wider public interest that the Allegation be considered before a Substantive Hearing panel.

28. Mr Doyle further submitted that the VRA was an appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with this matter and the HCPC invited the Panel to approve the proposed agreement.

The Registrant:

29. The Registrant did not provide any detailed submissions for the Panel’s consideration. However, the Panel had regard to the contents of an email, from the Registrant to the HCPC, dated 04 June 2025, as follows:

‘…Thanks for the latest update, new hearing date etc.

As previously I will not be making any comments, defence etc other than to say that having seen first hand just how self serving and duplicitous certain individuals I used to work for can and have been I have absolutely no interest or intention of ever working in that, or any related field ever again. It is in fact safe to say that I am ashamed to have ever called myself an Occupational Therapist or to have worked for that authority.

While I freely admit this case and in particular my record keeping around it was sub standard I also feel so was my treatment in relation to the investigation and in particular the authorities lack of willingness to even investigate factors such as workloads which I had made them aware were an issue on numerous occasions and which I consider mitigation if nothing else..

I do not however expect the HCPC to be remotely interested in this either not [sic] the complete lack of any reference to my case recording being an issue in supervision records dating back 20 years, nor from any case audit dating back 20 years etc.

As you can see I remain completely disillusioned with the whole sorry business and the profession as a whole.. At nearly 63 years of age I have moved on with my life and have no wish to reengage with OT or social services or adult social care etc in any way. While I suspect you will not see things this simply I am happy to 'plead guilty as charged' and to be struck off the register, never to return.

in relation to Article 25(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 I can inform you that I now work as a private hire driver for Pearson Travel of [redacted] and that I have no arrangements to provide professional services with anyone and that I am not registered with any other health or social care.’

Decision on Application

30. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice which included, but was not limited to:
i. reminding the Panel that the process of disposing of a case by way of consent is an extra-statutory means of concluding a matter and before agreeing to such a course the Panel has to be certain that by adopting this process there is the appropriate level of public protection and that there is no overriding public interest in this matter proceeding to a further substantive order review hearing;
ii. Article 11(3) of the 2001 Order and Rule 12(3) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Registration and Fees) Rules 2003 prevent a Registrant from seeking to resign from the Register whilst the Registrant is the subject of an Allegation. This being the case the Panel would, if agreeing to this matter being dealt with in this way, be required to agree to a discontinuance of proceedings.
iii. the HCPCTS Practice Note titled ‘Disposal of cases by consent’ (March 2018) states:
“8. In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public if the Registrant was permitted to resign from the Register it may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement allowing the Registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the Registrant had been struck off.”
iv. if the Panel is not satisfied that the above criteria have been met it appreciates that it has the ability to reject the application and allow the matter to proceed to a Substantive Hearing.

31. The Panel had sight of the following
documentation:
i. HCPC skeleton argument (4 pages);
ii. the HCPC Voluntary Removal bundle (704 pages);
iii. the HCPC service bundle (7 pages); and
iv. VRA document (12 pages).

32. In addition, the Panel also had regard to the HCPC’s submissions and the correspondence between the parties regarding the VRA.

33. Having carefully considered the material presented to it, the Panel noted that the Registrant had admitted the Allegation in full, he had requested to be removed from the HCPC register and had stated that he has no intention of returning to any form of OT work. The Panel also noted that a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a ‘case to answer’.

34. Based on the documentary evidence and the full admissions made by the Registrant, the Panel was satisfied that the particulars of the Allegation were capable of being found proved on the balance of probabilities. The Panel took into account the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conduct and the material before it and it was satisfied that these factors would also have supported a finding of current impairment, in respect of the Registrant’s fitness to practise. Although the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct may not have resulted in a Striking Off Order (given the ground of lack of competence contained within the Allegation), the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s circumstances met the underlying purpose of removal by consent, which is to avoid unnecessary Substantive Hearings. The Panel also noted that as the VRA mirrors the terms of a Striking Off Order, in that it would prevent the Registrant from practising as an OT, using any title associated with that profession and would prevent him from making an application to be re-admitted to the Register within 5 years.

35. It was also clear to the Panel, particularly from the Registrant’s most recent correspondence (outlined above), that the Registrant has: reached a decision that he no longer wishes to practise as an OT; secured alternative employment; and wishes to bring matters to a conclusion by removing himself from the HCPC register. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is fully aware of the consequences of voluntary removal and has willingly entered into such an agreement with the HCPC. The Panel therefore concluded that it does not consider that the matters raised in this case are such that a Substantive Hearing is warranted.

36. Having regard to the nature and circumstances in this case, the Panel was also satisfied that the VRA would offer service user protection, in that the Registrant will not be able to practise as an OT as the effect of the VRA is that the Registrant will be removed from the HCPC Register and he would be unable to reapply to be admitted to the HCPC Register for a period of five years.

37. The Panel also considered that the wider public interest would be appropriately dealt with and would not be affected by this matter not being publicly scrutinised at a Substantive Hearing. The Panel was of the view that the acceptance of a measure equivalent to Strike-Off would not be seen by the public as the Registrant being afforded with an ‘easy way’ to leave past events behind him. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s practice has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the HCPC during the course of its investigation into his conduct, proceedings had been ongoing for a number of years (with the particulars of the Allegation dating back to 2019) and the Registrant fully accepts the Allegation. The Panel also noted that should the Registrant wish to return to the HCPC Register, then he will also have several requirements to fulfil before being able to regain registration. Additionally, the Panel noted that the Registrant stated that he is 63 years of age and never wishes to practise as an OT again.

38. The Panel therefore determined that there is a legitimate public interest in avoiding a Substantive Hearing where full admissions have been made and where the Registrant has expressed a clear desire to be removed from the Register. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct also has the potential to damage the reputation of the OT profession and was likely to undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.

39. Consequently, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel concluded that in all the circumstances of this case the approval of the proposed VRA is the proportionate and appropriate course of action in this matter.

40. The Panel noted that the VRA presented to it documented that the terms of the VRA had been signed by the HCPC, the Registrant and his witness, and that Schedule A and C had also been signed by the Registrant and his witness. However, the Panel also noted that Schedule B (which pertains to the operative date of the VRA), had only been signed by the Registrant and had not been witnessed.

41. The Panel determined, with agreement as to its proposed approach provided by Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC, that the most pragmatic way to proceed to ensure that HCPC funds were not wasted, was to consider the application before it and having determined to agree to the VRA being granted, that the granting of the VRA was conditional and subject to the Registrant furnishing the HCPC with a signed and witnessed version of Schedule B. The Panel considered that it was proportionate to afford the Registrant with 13 working days to provide the signed and witnessed version of Schedule B to the HCPC and that the document should be provided no later than 4pm on 24 December 2025. The Panel also directed that should the signed and witnessed version of Schedule B not be provided to the HCPC by the Registrant by the 24 December 2025, then the HCPC shall relist the matter before another panel for reconsideration.

42. Accordingly, the Chair of the Panel has, on behalf of the Panel, signed and dated the attached Notice of Withdrawal and the Panel direct that the withdrawal shall take effect on the date that the signed and witnessed version of Schedule B is provided to the HCPC by the Registrant.

The Order came into effect on 19 December 2025.

History of Hearings for Stephen Newton