Mr Ismael Lavares

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel first considered the issue of service as the Registrant was not in attendance.

2. The Panel had been provided with the certificate of registration signed by the Registrar dated 6 December 2024. This certificate confirmed the registered email address for the Registrant. The Panel had also been provided with the notice of hearing email dated 6 December 2024 sent to the Registrant at his registered email address. This confirmed the hearing dates (6 and 20 February 2025) and times of the hearing as well as informing the Registrant that it would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant an opportunity to attend the hearing and/or make written submissions and of the Panel’s ability to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

3. The Panel had also been provided with a copy of email correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPTS Hearing’s Officer, dated 4 February 2025, the content of which is set out below:
‘I have said my intention many times that Im nit attending any meetings and I am just waiting for this to finish and close this event of my life, It has been four years and this is the only thing dragging me which took a long time. I have moved on and trying to build a new life away from my profession which I have no intention of using again or even be related to my profession again. Having this case closed as soon as will give me a new start coz i have been hanging for the past 4 years and waiting for this to end. All i want now is peace and quiet and I dont want my bext four years of my life waiting for this to end. I have wasted 4 years already instead of building a new life away from this issue. No disrespect.’

4. The Hearings Officer submitted that good service had been effected.

5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the Health Professions Order 2001 and the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”), namely rule 6. The Legal Assessor advised that good service would be effected by notifying the Registrant, at his registered email address, of the time and date of the hearing and by providing him with 28 days’ notice.

6. The Panel was satisfied that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the hearing had been provided to the Registrant, in accordance with the Rules.
Proceeding in Absence

7. Mr Slack invited the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

8. Mr Slack referred the Panel to three different emails included within the bundles. The latest email was sent by the Registrant to the HCPTS on 4 February 2025 and is set out above. An email was sent by the Registrant to the HCPC on 23 May 2024, which states:
‘Thanks for this information. I have given up since I was convicted at Aberdeen sheriff court and from then I have no intention of using the profession name title or practising my profession in the future. Im happy about the support im receiving from case manager by informing me the process. Im only waiting for the final decision so I can leave everything behind . I have no intention of attending any hearing and accepted that I am no longer this professional and waiting to be removed from the registrar as Paying my fee is also another bump on my side financially.’

9. A further email was sent by the Registrant to the HCPTS on 5 December 2024. The email sent on 5 December 2024 states as follows:
‘I have no issues with the dates. I also want you to know that I am not attending any hearing as I have move on with my life and not after my old title or my profession which i intend not to use at all. All I want now is for this to finish and get the case close as it has been more than 3 years and by time the final hearing it would be 4 years. My life is not tied up with my license to practice and the more it takes too long to close the more I cannot move forward with my life this license to practise is dragging me down to fully progress my life. I dont want my next 5 years or 4 years waiting for the final closure of my case from HCPC. All I want now is to end this case and be whatever you want to do with my lisense to practice. I have done and completed my penalty with the law imposed by the sheriff court and I have moved on already. The court took 2 years to deal with my case which is now finished. But HCPC still not resolving this and its nearly 4 years. Nothing worst on what I received from the sheriff court as penalty at least it is now done and I have closure. In your case I cannot wait for another 4 years before you can put closure to my case under the fitness to practice.I have to move on with my life away from being OT and i have NO INTETION of claiming back my title. Pls have this close as soon as.’

10. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant has repeatedly made clear that he has no intention of attending the hearing and wishes for the case to conclude as quickly as possible. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant has clearly voluntarily absented himself, and made clear that he does not want the matter to be adjourned. Mr Slack submitted that it is in the Registrant’s interests, and the interests of justice, to proceed with this matter expeditiously.

11. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the factors it should take into account when considering proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. This included reference to rule 11 of the Rules and cases including GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, and R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] UKHL 5. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS guidance ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ dated June 2022.

12. The Panel concluded that it was fair, reasonable, and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant for the following reasons:
• The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily and deliberately absented himself, as evidenced in his emails. The Registrant had not sought an adjournment of the hearing and there was no indication from him that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing this hearing would be unlikely to secure his attendance.
• The Panel considered the factors identified in the case law and found no good or compelling reason to adjourn the case.
• The Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence, and/or make submissions. However, he has been consistent in his email correspondence with his assertion that he does not want to attend and that the process is impacting on him negatively.
• The Panel considered that it is in the public interest and in the Registrant’s own interest for it to proceed with the expeditious disposal of the case.
Amendment to Allegation

13. Mr Slack made an application to amend the Allegation. The amendments sought are set out below with bold text showing proposed additions and strike-through showing proposed deletions.
‘As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT49767):
1. On 28 June 2022, you were convicted at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court, of the following charges:
a) on 09 May 2020, at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Forester Road, Aberdeen you did steal a quantity of bank cards, cash and paper.
b) on 09 May 2020, at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Forester Road, Aberdeen you did present by electronic means to an ATM a bank card in the name of Person A (redacted information), c/o the Police Service of Scotland and by said means did pretend to said ATM that you were the owner of said card and did induce said ATM to supply to you goods namely cash in exchange therefor and did obtain goods to the value of £500 by fraud.
c) on 10 May 2020, at RS McColls, 33 Castle Street, Aberdeen you did present by electronic means to an ATM a bank card in the name of Person A (redacted information), c/o the Police Service of Scotland and by said means did pretend to said ATM that you were the owner of said card and did induce said ATM to supply to you goods namely cash in exchange therefor and did obtain goods to the value of £60 by fraud.
2. By reason of the matter set out above your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction’

14. Mr Slack submitted that the proposed additions and deletions are to replicate the wording in the extract conviction report. He submitted that the amendments are minor and do not prejudice the Registrant, who was notified of the proposed changes by letter dated 27 August 2024.

15. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

16. The Panel was satisfied that it would be fair to make the proposed amendments to the Allegation. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had been provided with significant notice of the proposed amendments and had not raised any issues. Further, the Panel found the amendments to be minor in nature, offering further clarification rather than widening the scope or seriousness. Therefore, the Panel did not find any injustice to the Registrant in adopting the proposed amendments.

Background
17. This matter relates to the Registrant’s conviction for theft of bank cards, cash and paper (from a patient, whilst the Registrant was working at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary) and fraud by way of using the bank card to withdraw cash from ATMs.

18. The HCPC received a self-referral form dated 2 June 2020 from the Registrant in which he stated that he had been charged by the police on the same day. The Registrant provided details of the incident investigated by the police, denied taking the patient’s bank card and stated that he was not guilty, but that he would be pleading guilty.

19. The HCPC also received a referral, dated 3 June 2020, from the Registrant’s then employer (Aberdeen Royal Infirmary) stating that the Registrant had been arrested and charged with theft, and providing further details regarding the investigation.

20. The HCPC obtained information from the police regarding the criminal proceedings, in which the police provided details of the charges, investigation, and outcome. An Extract of Conviction was obtained from the Court, which confirmed that the Registrant was convicted of the offences (described in Particular 1) on 28 June 2022, and was sentenced on 24 August 2022, including details of the sentence. The Court informed the HCPC that there are no sentencing remarks available.
Hearing

21. The Panel indicated that it would hear submissions on facts, grounds and impairment together rather than retire at each step. The Panel confirmed that if it decided at any of the steps that the matter is not well founded it would not move on to consider the next step.

22. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Slack in relation to facts, grounds, and impairment.

23. In summary Mr Slack submitted as follows:
• The Panel can rely on the Extract Conviction Report as evidence of the facts.
• The statutory ground of conviction is established by virtue of the production of the Extract Conviction Report.
• The four limbs of the test set out in Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v. (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 Admin, are all engaged.
• Theft of a patient’s bank card and subsequent use of that card to fraudulently withdraw money from the patient’s account is likely to cause a risk of financial and psychological harm to the patient, brings the profession into disrepute, breaches fundamental tenets of honesty and integrity, and is by definition, dishonest.
• The Registrant is in breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and his behaviour falls far below that expected of a registered health professional.
• The Registrant’s ongoing denials of the allegations and failure to address the impact of such conduct, shows a clear lack of insight. This, coupled with the attitudinal nature of the allegations tends to suggest that this is not easily remediable conduct, and that the Registrant remains impaired as of today’s date.
• The Panel should find the Registrant impaired on both the personal and public components.

24. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Notes on Conviction and Caution Allegations (dated September 2024) and Fitness to Practice Impairment (dated November 2023). The Legal Assessor referred to rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and Article 22 (1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Legal Assessor advised that dishonesty is an essential ingredient of theft and fraud. The following case law was also referenced: of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Bolton v Law Society 1993 and Cohen v GMC (2008) EWHC 581 (Admin).
Decision on Facts

25. The bundle provided to the Panel included numerous letters from Police Scotland, to the HCPC. The evidence contained within those letters set out the nature of the criminal charges, details of the criminal sentence imposed, a summary of events from the standard prosecution report and an extract from the police interview with the Registrant.

26. The Panel noted that it was stated within those documents that the complainant was admitted as an in-patient at the hospital on 9 May 2020. It is said that on 11 May 2020, the complainant noticed that the contents of his wallet were missing. He advised a nurse, who in turn contacted the Police to report this as a theft. Later the same day, the complainant’s bank, Nationwide, contacted him to inform him of three fraudulent transactions as follows:
‘1139 hours on 09/05/2020 £250 at Marks and Spencer's ATM, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
- 1140 hours on 09/05/2020 £250 at Marks and Spencer's ATM, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
- 0941 hours on 10/05/2020 £60 at R S McColls, 33 Castle Street, Aberdeen.’

27. A further attempted withdrawal was made at the first ATM on 12 May 2020, but the machine retained the card.

28. It is said that CCTV showed the Registrant at each of the ATMs in question at the relevant time.

29. The Panel noted that the Registrant was cautioned, arrested and interviewed at the police station and that according to the police information, he maintained his innocence to the alleged crime, admitted to using the ATMs at the time but said that was a coincidence.

30. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel took into account the Extract Conviction Report obtained from the Aberdeen Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court, which confirms that the Registrant was convicted of the offences (described in Particulars 1a, 1b, and 1c) on 28 June 2022, and that he was sentenced on 24 August 2022 to a community payback order and 160 hours of unpaid work.

31. The Panel took into account that Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’ (dated September 2024) provide that where the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, an Extract Conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based.

32. The Panel recognised that the burden of proof, to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, always rested on the HCPC. Relying on the Extract Conviction Report, the Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had proved Particulars 1a, 1b, and 1c on the balance of probabilities.
Decision on Grounds

33. Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) provides that one of the grounds upon which an Allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence.

34. The Panel took into account that in this case, the Registrant had been convicted, at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, on 28 June 2022, of the charges as set out in Particulars 1a, 1b, and 1c.

35. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the statutory ground of conviction was established.
Decision on Impairment

36. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal component and then from the wider public component. The Panel also had regard to whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.

37. In deciding impairment, the Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant (“Grant”). The Panel considered whether:
a- The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.
b- The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.
c- The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
d-The Registrant has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.

38. In relation to harm, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct has in the past placed service users at unwarranted risk of harm. Whilst there is no evidence of physical harm, the Panel took into account that the service user, who was an elderly inpatient at the hospital, had suffered financial harm to the loss of £560. The Panel considered that there was also the potential for the service user to have suffered emotional harm and distress. He was vulnerable by nature of him being an inpatient at the hospital and he would have expected that his private property would have been safe.

39. In relation to the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined he had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of behaviour so as not to bring the occupational therapy profession into disrepute. The dishonest behaviour and conduct for which the Registrant was convicted does bring the occupational therapy profession into disrepute.

40. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, which were in effect from January 2016 to 31 August 2024. Standard 1 requires HCPC registered professionals to ‘Promote and protect the interests of service users and carers.’ In relation to treating service users and carers with respect, Standard 1.1 states:
‘You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.’

41. Standard 9 requires HCPC registered professionals to ‘Be honest and trustworthy’ in their personal and professional behaviour. Standard 9.1 states:
‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.’

42. The Panel considered that honesty and integrity are fundamental tenets of occupational therapy practice, and that it is integral to the profession that service users have their privacy and dignity respected. The Panel concluded that by stealing the service user’s cash, card and pin number, for his own personal gain, the Registrant had not respected the service user’s privacy, and he had breached the public’s trust and confidence as well as breaching fundamental tenets of the occupational therapy profession.

43. In relation to dishonesty, the Panel determined that the Registrant had in the past acted dishonestly, both by way of the theft of the card and the fraud in using the card on multiple occasions to obtain money for his own personal financial gain. The Panel considered the seriousness of the conduct and determined that it was extremely serious. The Registrant was convicted at the Sheriff Court of three counts set out at Particular 1 of the Allegation and received a community sentence.

44. The Panel considered the extent to which the conviction, and the conduct underlying that conviction, can be, and has been, remediated by the Registrant and whether it is likely to be repeated.

45. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character such as dishonesty may be harder to remediate. However, in certain circumstances such concerns are capable of being remedied providing that sufficient insight, reflection and remediation can be evidenced.

46. The Panel had no evidence before it from the Registrant to indicate any insight. Although the self-referral states that the Registrant intended to plead guilty, the Panel had no evidence that he did so. The Registrant made it clear within his self-referral, and his police interview, that he did not commit the offences. In his police interview, the Registrant stated that ‘normally a patient will surrender their belongs to nursing staff while in hospital…there is no chance that someone of my profession would have the opportunity to be handed a card for safe keeping.’ The Panel took into account that whilst the Registrant had the right to deny the charges, he appeared to be trying to deflect blame onto other staff, by making the comments he did. Further, he does now have a criminal conviction, and despite that, he has not provided any subsequent evidence to the HCPC to explain what led to his wrongdoing, nor that what he did was unacceptable. The Panel considered that the Registrant has not demonstrated any remorse or provided any evidence that he has reflected on his actions and the impact such actions had on the public, his colleagues, and the occupational therapy profession.

47. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had not provided any evidence of how he has or would alleviate the serious concerns that his criminal actions raise. There is no evidence that he successfully complied with and completed his criminal sentence and no evidence of remediation.

48. The Panel considered whether there was a risk of repetition of the Registrant repeating the conduct which resulted in the conviction in this case. Given its finding that the Registrant has provided no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains high. The Panel found that given the lack of insight, there remains a potential for the Registrant to behave dishonestly again.

49. The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

50. In relation to the public component, the Panel considered very carefully whether given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the conviction in this case, public confidence in the occupational therapy profession and its regulatory body would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel has also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.

51. The Panel was satisfied that, in being convicted of theft and fraud from a service user, the Registrant had not maintained the HCPC professional Standards and had undermined confidence in the occupational therapy profession. The Registrant’s behaviour involved a gross breach of the trust placed in him as an Occupational Therapist. His conduct was carried out for his own financial gain and was repeated on three occasions until on the fourth attempt to take money the ATM kept the card as it had been reported as stolen.

52. Members of the public are entitled to expect registrants to act with honesty and integrity. The Panel concluded that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would be shocked and appalled if there was no finding of impairment in this case.

53. The Panel was satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel was also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the occupational therapy profession if it did not find that the Registrant's fitness to practise is impaired.

54. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on the public component.
Reconvened hearing

55. The hearing was listed for two days, namely 6 and 20 February 2025. On the 6 February 2025, the Panel concluded on facts, grounds and impairment. The decision was handed down. The Panel confirmed that it would proceed to deal with sanction on 20 February 2025.
Decision on sanction

56. Mr Slack made no positive submission on the matter of appropriate sanction, but outlined for the Panel the principles which he submitted should guide the Panel in its decision making, as per the HCPTS Sanctions Policy.

57. Mr Slack submitted that the Panel may find that the criminal conviction stemming from serious allegations is too serious for no further action or a Caution Order.

58. In respect of imposing conditions of practice, Mr Slack referred the Panel to the Sanctions Policy which he submitted is clear that, conditions are less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving dishonesty.

59. In relation to the level of seriousness of the dishonesty, Mr Slack asked the Panel to have regard to the factors identified in the Sanctions Policy including, whether the relevant behaviour took the form of a single act or occurred on multiple occasions, and whether the Registrant took a passive or active role in it.

60. Mr Slack submitted that the fraud occurred on multiple occasions, and that the Registrant’s behaviour was stopped by the ATM keeping the card as opposed to the Registrant ceasing his dishonest actions. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant took an active role in the dishonesty, he has not made any clear admissions and has not evidenced any insight into his actions.

61. Mr Slack submitted that the Panel may find that a Suspension Order would be insufficient to address the concerns. He submitted that there are multiple concerns in this case forming the basis of the allegations (the initial theft of a patient’s belongings, three instances of fraud, and a further attempt to use the bank card), a lack of equivocal admissions (suggesting the Registrant was only pleading guilty to make his life easier), and a lack of insight.

62. Mr Slack reminded the Panel that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts. Mr Slack referred to the list of factors identified in the Sanctions Policy which includes dishonesty, abuse of professional position (including vulnerability) and criminal convictions for serious offences.

63. Mr Slack referred the Panel to the requirement to reach a proportionate sanction which protects the public and the wider public interest, including public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

64. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the Panel was referred to the HCPC’s ‘Sanctions Policy’. The Legal Assessor advised that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have a punitive effect. Sanctions are imposed only for the purpose of protecting the public, maintaining trust and confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding professional standards. The Panel was advised that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the case. The Panel was referred to the cases of CHRE v GDC & Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 and PSA v GDC & Patel [2024] EWHC 243, concerning a Registrant’s return to practice whilst subject to criminal sanction. There is a “general principle” that an individual who had been convicted of a criminal offence should not be permitted to resume practice until he/she had completed their sentence. However, Fleischmann cannot be applied as if it were a rule; both it and the “general principle” derived from the Sanctions Policy must bend to the overarching requirement to impose a sanction which is just, proportionate and only that which is necessary to maintain public confidence.

65. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.

66. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
• The conviction was for dishonesty involving theft of the card and then multiple frauds in using the card at an ATM to withdraw cash, which only stopped because the ATM kept the card on the fourth occasion as the card had been reported as missing.
• The conduct in relation to the conviction was an abuse of the Registrant’s professional position and a breach of trust. The HCPC ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics’ require registrants to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust in them and their profession. This means being honest and trustworthy and acting in the best interests of service users. In acting as he did, the Registrant’s behaviour undermined the public’s trust in him and the profession.
• The Registrant’s conduct was deliberate and was a financial abuse of trust. He stole from a service user for his own financial gain. When he was questioned by the police, the Registrant appeared to try to deflect blame onto the nursing staff.
• The Registrant has not provided any evidence of insight and has failed to express remorse.
• The Registrant has not provided any evidence of remediation.
• The service user, who was an elderly inpatient at the hospital, had suffered financial harm to the loss of £560. He was vulnerable by nature of him being an inpatient at the hospital and he would have expected that his private property would have been safe.

67. The Panel could not identify any mitigating factors.

68. In considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Panel had regard to the need to assess the seriousness of the issues raised by the case and specifically referred to the ‘Serious Cases’ section of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel found this was a serious case and it involved dishonesty, abuse of professional position for financial gain, and abuse of a vulnerable service user’s trust.

69. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It noted that the final sanction should be proportionate and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public and uphold the public interest.

70. Due to the serious nature of the conduct in this case, the Panel considered that referring the case for mediation or taking no further action would be insufficient to protect the public or to uphold the public interest.

71. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the finding of impairment in this case, nor protect the public. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a Caution Order.

72. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel took into account its findings at the impairment stage that the Registrant has not demonstrated any insight and that there remains a high risk of repetition of the conduct leading to the conviction. The Panel was of the view it was not commensurate with the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. It considered that this would not protect the public and that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour was dealt with by a way of a Conditions of Practice Order.

73. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy which states:
“A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings”.

74. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s conviction was for a serious offence of theft and fraud. It involved the Registrant deliberately taking a service user’s bank card and using it to obtain cash for his own financial gain. The Panel took into account its earlier findings that the Registrant lacks insight and that the nature of his correspondence with the HCPC and failure to attend this hearing show an unwillingness to resolve matters. It had also found that there is a high risk of repetition of the conduct.

75. Having taken the above factors into account, the Panel considered that a Suspension Order was not the appropriate order in this case. Given the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would be undermined if a Suspension Order was imposed.

76. The Panel next considered a Striking Off Order. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort, as set out in paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy for serious, persistent, deliberate, or reckless acts involving, among other things, dishonesty, abuse of professional position and/or criminal convictions. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conviction fell into these specified categories. The Panel was satisfied, based on the nature and gravity of the conviction, together with the Registrant’s lack of insight, that a Striking Off Order was necessary to protect the public, uphold the standards for members of the profession, and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

77. The Panel acknowledged that it must weigh the Registrant’s interests with the public interest, when determining sanction. In the current case the Registrant is serving a criminal sentence, but a Striking Off Order may further damage the Registrant’s reputation. Having considered the seriousness of the conviction, together with the Panel’s finding of impairment, the guidance of the Sanctions Policy, and all the circumstances of the case, the Panel was satisfied that the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests, and its sanction decision is appropriate and proportionate.

78. The Panel therefore decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name Ismael G Lavares from the HCPC Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order
Application
79. Mr Slack made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period and allow for any appeal to be disposed of. Mr Slack confirmed that the Registrant had been notified of the ability of the Panel to make an Interim Order after imposing a sanction.

80. Mr Slack submitted that an Interim Order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. In support of his submissions that those grounds are satisfied, he relied on the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issue.
Decision

81. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders dated September 2024. She advised that the Panel may impose an Interim Order if it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the Registrant.

82. Having regard to the Interim Orders Practice Note, the Panel first considered whether it was appropriate to consider the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence.

83. The Panel took into account that the Notice of Hearing letter dated 6 December 2024, advised the Registrant that such an application may be made. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was given notice of the ability of the Panel to impose an Interim Order after sanction. The Panel also concluded that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence in accordance with its earlier decision on proceeding in absence.

84. In its decision on impairment the Panel decided that there is a high risk of repetition. Consequently, the Panel concluded that an Interim Order is necessary for protection of members of the public. An Interim Order is also otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel for its substantive sanction decision.

85. The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period but concluded that imposing conditions would not provide sufficient protection for the public for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision.

86. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

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

88. 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.

89. 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 Mr Ismael Lavares