Adam Brown

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened to undertake the final hearing of the HCPC’s Allegation against the Registrant, who is currently named Mr Adam Brown. The Registrant was previously known as Mr Richard Scott.

Service of the notice of hearing

2. In view of the Registrant’s absence the Panel sought to be satisfied that proper notice of the hearing had been sent to the Registrant. The Panel decided that the email dated 24 January 2025, that was sent to the Registrant informing him of the date and time of the hearing, as well as information concerning the manner in which the hearing was to be conducted, constituted a valid notice of hearing.

Application to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant

3. After the Panel announced its decision that it was satisfied that there had been good service of the notice of hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. In the context of that application, the Panel was informed that on 20 February 2025 in a telephone conversation between the Registrant and a member of the firm of Solicitors representing the HCPC, the Registrant stated that he would not be attending the hearing. In that conversation he said that he would confirm that view in writing. After a reminder, at 15:39 on 26 February 2025, the day before the hearing, the Registrant sent a statement that began with the following sentence: “I have decided against attending the hearing beginning on Thursday 27th February 2025.” The document then went on to provide reasons why the Registrant had arrived at the decision not to attend the hearing.

4. In reaching its decision on the HCPC’s application that the case should proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel heeded the terms of the relevant HCPTS Practice Note and heeded the advice of the Legal Assessor. Accordingly, the Panel approached the issue on the basis that the valid notice of hearing was a necessary but not sufficient reason to proceed. What the Panel was required to do was to assess whether it would be fair in all the circumstances to do so. Clearly, fairness to the Registrant is a very important element of that decision, but fairness to the HCPC and to the public interest in ensuring expeditious disposal of cases should also be considered.

5. Having considered the matter, the Panel concluded that the hearing should proceed notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant. He has made a clear voluntary decision not to attend the hearing. The Registrant did not apply for the hearing to be adjourned, nor did he suggest that he might change his mind about attending were the hearing to take place at some point in the future. Accordingly, the Panel could not conclude that there would be any positive advantage in delaying the hearing, which would have to take place at some stage. Furthermore, any disadvantage to the Registrant as a consequence of not attending had been mitigated by the documents he had provided for the consideration of the Panel.

Background

6. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Biomedical Scientist (“BMS”). At the time of the events giving rise to the conviction with which this case is concerned, he was employed by University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) working at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. He was working, and had been working for some considerable period, in a senior position. His role was described by a Consultant Haematologist who provided a character reference as the senior coagulation BMS and laboratory manager.

7. It is the HCPC’s case that on 8 December 2023, the Registrant appeared at the Bournemouth Crown Court and pleaded guilty to an allegation that, as a person over the age of 18 years he attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child. The information provided by the HCPC is that when the Registrant appeared at the same Court on 26 January 2024, the following were the elements of the sentence imposed on him:

• 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months;

• A rehabilitation activity requirement (“RAR”) of 30 days;

• A requirement to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work;

• Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 7 years.

• Registration on the Sex Offenders Register for 7 years.

• Forfeiture and destruction of a telephone.

• A requirement to pay a victim surcharge of £154 and £1,000 towards prosecution costs.

8. The Registrant’s conviction arose from on-line conversations he had using a second telephone he had for having sexual conversations with people. It is noteworthy that the phone in question was retrieved by the Police from his workplace. The relevant conversations he had were with a person he met through a FaceBook site who represented themselves to be 13 years of age. The conversations started in around early March 2022 and continued for several weeks. In the conversations, the Registrant expressed a sexual interest in the recipient and sought an image of the recipient’s breasts. The recipient was not in fact a 13-year-old female but was a member of an on-line activist group who eventually reported the details of the conversation to the police.

9. On Saturday 30 July 2022 the Registrant was confronted at home by members of the activist group and was soon after arrested by police and taken into custody. His second mobile phone was also seized by police from his workplace.
10. On 31 July 2022 the Registrant was released on bail which included conditions in relation to contact with children and not being able to attend his home address.

11. The Registrant initially made no comment to police after his arrest and did not disclose the PINs of his devices, stating this was on the basis of legal advice. The Registrant later made a voluntary statement to the police and disclosed the PINs.

12. Shortly after being released by the Police on bail, the Registrant advised his employer of the charges and made a disclosure to the HCPC.

Decision on facts and grounds

13. The HCPC did not call any live witnesses. Rather, they sought to prove the fact of the conviction by production to the Panel of a Certificate of Conviction dated 19 April 2024.

14. The Panel accepted that there was not a formal admission made by the Registrant that he had been convicted. However, from the written representations he made to the Panel it was clear that he was not contending that the Certificate of Conviction was erroneous or did not relate to him. Accordingly, the Panel accepted that Certificate as sufficient proof of the fact that the Registrant had been convicted as alleged.

15. The allegation in this case being that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of the conviction, proof of the fact of the conviction also amounts to the statutory ground.

Decision on impairment

16. Having found the conviction to be established, the Panel next considered the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise. Again, the HCPC did not produce evidence in relation to this issue, but rather relied upon the submissions of the Presenting Officer. Those submissions were contained in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the Case Summary provided in advance of the hearing. Included in that section were the following paragraphs:

“26. The Panel is reminded of the HCPC Practice Note Convictions and Caution Allegations (September 2024) and in particular the following:
• At para 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…’
• At para 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…’

27. The Panel is also reminded of the matter of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and the formulation of Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth Shipman Report in relation to the appropriate test for considering fitness to practise being whether the practitioner:
a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or
c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession …

28. The HCPC will submit that, notwithstanding this being the sole criminal conviction for the Registrant, the gravity of the Registrant’s conviction sits near the most serious end of criminal conduct and represents a breach of a fundamental tenant of the profession, and public confidence in the profession will be seriously undermined if the conduct of the Registrant is not found impaired.”

17. The Panel also had regard to the information contained in the hearing bundle that had been provided by the Registrant as to the steps he had taken towards remediation. These were summarised by the Presenting Officer when he opened the case. Additionally, the Panel paid attention to the information contained in the statement provided by the Registrant on 26 February 2025, in which the following was stated:

“I have completed a 10 week course with the Lucy Faithful Foundation concerning inappropriate online behaviour.

I have completed the sessions with Catch-22 organised by the probation service.

The 200 hours of unpaid work have been completed, which I found quite rewarding as I was allocated to a community kitchen providing lunchtime meals to a local elderly community associated with the Methodist Church.

I have been seeing a private counsellor since Jan 2024 and will continue for the indefinite future as I find his advice and guidance …….

The probation service engage with me on a monthly basis, which will come to an end in July.

During my suspension from work, prior to being dismissed, I volunteered full time for the charity Ukraine Relief for 8 months, predominantly working in their warehouse preparing pallets of donated materials to be transport out to the Poland Ukraine border, again, a very rewarding experience.”

18. In reaching its decision on current impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel paid close attention to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Fitness to Practise Impairment” dated February 2025. Accordingly, the Panel considered the issues the personal and public components separately.

19. So far as the personal component is concerned, the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has taken the steps recorded in the information provided to the Panel and that he continues to express shame, guilt and regret for his actions. However, the important factor for the purposes of reaching a decision on personal component impairment is whether, and to what extent, those steps have altered the mindset the Registrant clearly had in March 2022.

20. The Panel acknowledges that, in sentencing the Registrant on 26 January 2024, the Judge in the Crown Court stated that the prospect of rehabilitation was “extremely high”.

21. However, in the information before the Panel there are two elements that have troubled it. The first element is demonstrated by the following quotation from the sentencing remarks of the Judge:

“I have read the Pre-Sentence Report in which you say you do not have a sexual interest in children. The probation report author refers to there being an element of sexual interest in children. I do not really agree with either of those. It seems to me it is nonsensical. You, as an adult, spoke to someone who you believe to be a 13 year old girl in a manner clearly showing that you believed she was a child and referring, over a period of several weeks throughout, to sexual behaviour. You do have, you may not acknowledge it, but you do have a sexual interest in children.”

The second element is a paragraph contained in the statement provided by the Registrant on 26 February 2025, which reads as follows:

“When my case eventually went to court I employed the services of a barrister at considerable expense to try and fight the case against me as I feel that a significant degree of entrapment had taken place, and I was of the belief that the profile was being operated by an adult, mainly due to the nature of the language that was being employed during the conversations. Indeed that was something that I was correct about, however in the transcripts that were provided, there was insufficient challenge from myself to this fact and the Barrister advised that the jury would be unlikely to find in my favour, so I plead guilty to the charge against me, and accepted the sentence handed out by the Judge.”

22. The passages quoted in the preceding paragraph have resulted in the Panel concluding that the Registrant has not, at least fully, accepted the gravity of his actions. It is difficult to read the statement made yesterday as amounting to anything other than a denial of the offence to which he pleaded guilty. In circumstances where there is incomplete acceptance of past behaviour it is difficult for a Panel to conclude that there is a sufficiently low risk of repetition of inappropriate behaviour. In all the circumstances, the Panel has concluded that there remains a sufficient risk of repetition to require a finding of personal component impairment of fitness to practise.

23. With regard to the public component, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct constituted a very serious breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics in force at the time of the actions he took that resulted in the conviction. That standard required all registrants to make sure that their conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in both them and their profession. The Panel is satisfied that fair-minded members of the public would be appalled to know that a health professional had been convicted of an offence of this nature. Were there not a recognition of that fact by the Panel reaching a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise, their trust and confidence in the profession of BMS and the regulation of it would be severely diminished.

24. Furthermore, the Panel has a duty to declare and uphold proper professional standards. That is required for a number of reasons, including the important need to remind other registrants that behaviour of the sort indulged in by the Registrant is unacceptable. This factor also requires a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise.

25. The result of these findings is that the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, with the consequence that it is necessary to go on to consider the issue of sanction.

Decision on Sanction

26. After the Panel handed down its decision explaining its reasons for finding the allegation to be well founded, it allowed the Presenting Officer time to read the written determination before making submissions on sanction.

27. Given the absence of the Registrant, the Presenting Officer very properly identified mitigating factors that could be advanced on behalf of the Registrant. These will be identified in the Panel’s decision below. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel of the proper purpose of a sanction and he took the Panel to various elements of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy which were submitted to be relevant. He informed the Panel that it was the HCPC’s submission that the only appropriate sanction that could be imposed in this case was one of striking off.

28. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach to be applied to the sanction decision. Accordingly, the Panel accepted that a sanction should not be imposed with the intention of punishing the Registrant. Rather, any sanction imposed should be the least restrictive order compatible with the need to protect the public and the maintenance of a proper degree of public confidence in the profession of Biomedical Science and the regulation of it. To ensure that this approach was observed, the first question to be asked is whether the finding that the allegation is well founded requires the imposition of any sanction. If the answer to that initial question is that a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of seriousness. As the finding in this case concerns a conviction allegation, the entire sanction range, up to and including striking off is available. In reaching its decisions the Panel confirms that it has paid close attention to the terms of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy.

29. Before asking itself whether the sanction questions just identified, the Panel considered whether there were any aggravating and mitigating factors that it would be proper to take into account.

30. The Panel does not identify any specific aggravating factors for the simple reason that the allegation found proven is one that the Panel considers to be very grave and one that is of a category specifically identified in the
Sanctions Policy as a “serious case”.

31. With regard to mitigating factors, it has already been stated that the Presenting Officer identified the following factors:

• The Registrant pleaded guilty to the charge in the Crown Court.

• The Registrant is a man who has no other criminal convictions or other regulatory findings against him.

• The Registrant has apologised for his actions.

• In his communications with the HCPC, the Registrant has demonstrated some acknowledgement of the seriousness with which his actions are likely to be viewed.

• By the actions already mentioned, the Registrant has taken steps that have been intended to address and remediate his past actions.

• The Panel is aware of the serious effect the matter has had on the Registrant’s personal life and domestic circumstances.

• The very positive testimonial relating to the Registrant’s professional work.

It is, however, relevant to mention that (as advised in paragraph 40 of the Sanctions Policy) when a serious case of sexual misconduct is involved, activities intended to remediate concerns are liable to be considered of lesser importance than they would in a less serious case.

32. A further factor to be taken into account concerned the significance of elements of the sentence imposed in the Crown Court on 26 January 2024. It has already been stated that punishment is not a relevant factor in determining what sanction should be imposed. That is not to say, however, that a sentence that has already been imposed by a Court is irrelevant to the sanction decision. In the view of the Panel there are three elements of the sentence imposed on the Registrant that are relevant to the sanction decision to be made. They are (i) that he remains subject to a suspended term of imprisonment for a further five months; (ii) that he will he subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for a further period of nearly six years; and (iii) that he will be registered on the Sex Offenders Register for a further period of nearly six years. The Panel should make the approach to these matters very clear. It does not treat any of these factors (whether in isolation or in combination) as requiring any particular sanction to be imposed. However, it does consider that they are relevant to the issue to be decided.

33. With these various matters in mind, the Panel first considered whether its finding required the imposition of any sanction. The answer to that question was that a sanction is required both to protect the public and to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s actions.

34. Having turned to the available sanctions, and in particular after considering paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy, the Panel concluded that a caution order would neither reflect the seriousness of the case nor would it extend the required degree of public protection.

35. Accordingly, the Panel next considered whether a conditions of practice order would be appropriate. The conclusion of the Panel is that it would not because a failing of the type reflected in the Panel’s finding is not one that can or should be addressed by the imposition of a condition of practice. Furthermore, the imposition of a sanction that would permit a return to practise (subject to any condition imposed) would not sufficiently address public confidence issues.

36. Next addressing a suspension order, the Panel acknowledged that, for the duration of any period of suspension, such an order would provide public protection. But that factor apart, the Panel concluded that a suspension order would not be appropriate; this is not a case in which the position will be any different after even the maximum period of a suspension order. It is now three years since the relevant events occurred and the Panel has found that there remains an incomplete acceptance of what occurred. Furthermore, the extremely important public confidence issues would be in no way lessened in a year’s time from the present.

37. The Panel therefore considered whether a striking off order should be made. It acknowledged that the requirement of proportionality demanded that a striking off order should not be made simply because lesser sanction options had been considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, in the judgement of the Panel, no sanction other than striking off could be appropriate in this case. That striking off might be considered appropriate in a serious case of a sexual nature concerning children is envisaged by paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel was satisfied that fair-minded members of the public, as well as professional colleagues, would consider it to be wholly unacceptable for a person who had been convicted of this type of offence to be permitted to return to practise as a BMS. In short, the Registrant’s behaviour was such that it was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration on a register of health professionals.

38. In reaching the conclusion that a striking off order should be made, the Panel was satisfied that it represented a proportionate response to the finding on the allegation.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Adam Brown (formerly Richard Scott) from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. After the Panel announced its decision that the substantive sanction would be that of a striking off order, the Presenting Officer applied for an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. He submitted that the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues resulted in an interim order being necessary for protection of members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. In submitting that the order should be made for the maximum period of 18 months, he argued that if the Registrant did appeal the Panel’s decision, an appeal could take at least that length of time to be finally disposed of.

Decision

2. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the application and had regard to the section entitled, “Interim Orders” between paragraphs 133 and 135 of the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Interim Orders”. Accordingly, it first decided whether it had jurisdiction to consider the application. If satisfied that it has jurisdiction, the Panel must consider whether there are risks that satisfy one or more of the three grounds that could justify the making of an interim order. They are, (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public, (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest, and (iii) that it is in the interests of the registrant concerned. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the default position established by the legislation governing this process is that when a substantive sanction is imposed, there will be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain extant. Accordingly, something more than the fact that a substantive sanction has been imposed is required to justify the making of an interim order. If one or more of those grounds is made out, then, notwithstanding the fact that substantive conditions of practice have been rejected as an appropriate sanction, the Panel is required to consider whether interim conditions of practice would sufficiently address the reasons why the ground is established. The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach.

3. Included in the notice of hearing email sent to the Registrant on 24 January 2025, the following paragraph appeared: “Please note that if the Panel finds that it is necessary to do so, it may also impose an interim order (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001) at any stage during the hearing. An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.” The Panel concluded that this afforded the Registrant with the opportunity of making representations on the issue of whether an interim order should be made, and therefore provided jurisdiction for the application to be considered by the Panel.

4. Whilst acknowledging the default position that there is no restriction on a registrant’s restriction while their appeal rights remain outstanding, the Panel concluded that in the present case, an interim order is required. It is necessary for protection of members of the public and it is otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel in its substantive sanction decision.

5. The Panel considered whether interim conditions of practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period, but concluded that, for the same reasons a substantive conditions of practise order was not appropriate, interim conditions of practice would not be appropriate to cover the appeal period.

6. The Panel therefore concluded that an interim suspension order should be made.

7. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order made should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An order of that length is necessary because the final resolution of an appeal could well take 18 months if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Order, the interim order will simply fall away when the time within which he could have commenced an appeal passes.

INTERIM ORDER

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

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Adam Brown