Mr Leslie Richards

Preliminary Matters
Service of Notice
1. The notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant at his registered email address as it appeared in the register and by post on 5 December 2024 to his current address. The notice contained the date and time of today’s hearing, confirming that it was to be held by video conference. A delivery confirmation dated 5 December 2024 has also been provided to the Panel.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and is satisfied that notice of today’s hearing has been served in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (the “Rules”) including the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
3. The Panel then went on to consider whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, it considered the submissions of Mr Smith on behalf of the HCPC.

4. Mr Smith submitted that the HCPC has taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant. He further submitted that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, nor had he asked for an adjournment. The Registrant has not provided any reason for his absence.

5. He referred the Panel to an email from the Registrant to Capsticks, the solicitors instructed by the HCPC, dated 4 December 2024 in which he stated:
“Could you consider a consensual disposal by way of striking off as I would like to bring to an end these proceedings. I am simply unable to represent myself and/or pay for a legal representative given my current situation where I am serving a prison sentence.
Please let me know if your client agrees and then let me know what the next steps are. I also understand that there is an opportunity to register with the HCPC after 5 years, please provide advice and guidance on what this may entail and if this is a realistic option?”

6. He reminded the Panel that there was a public interest in this matter being dealt with expeditiously and that any adjournment would not secure the Registrant’s attendance at any future date.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised that, if the Panel is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to notify the Registrant of the hearing, then the Panel had the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He advised that the discretion was to be exercised with the utmost care and caution as set out in the case of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5.

8. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and advised that the Adeogba case reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and of the public interest. In that regard, the case of Adeogba was clear that: “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, ... , it is only right that it should proceed….there is a burden on...all professionals subject to a regulatory regime, to engage with the regulator, both in relation to the investigation and ultimate resolution of allegations made against them. That is part of the responsibility to which they sign up when being admitted to the profession.”

9. The Panel was mindful to ensure that fairness and justice were maintained when deciding whether or not to proceed in a Registrant’s absence.

10. The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the HCPC to notify the Registrant of the hearing. It was also satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and that he had voluntarily absented himself.
11. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel took into consideration the HCPC’s practice note entitled ‘Proceeding in the Absence of a Registrant’. The Panel weighed its responsibility for public protection and the expeditious disposal of the case with the Registrant’s right to a fair hearing.

12. The Panel has taken into account the Registrant’s email dated 7 February 2025 to Capsticks, the solicitors instructed on behalf of the HCPC in which he stated:
“Thank you for sending the bundle to prison and corresponding via email. As mentioned before, owing to my personal and financial circumstances I will not be able to be represented on this matter. I have requested for this matter to be managed by consensual disposal, however your client did not agreed as a court date had been set. I do not understand why this matter could not be brought to a close via consensual disposal but I will leave that for the tribunal to consider.”

13. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the following:
• the Registrant in his email of 7 February 2025 to the HCPC unequivocally indicated that he will not be represented at this hearing and that he was seeking a consensual disposal. The Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s email of 4 December 2024. In the circumstances, it was satisfied that he has made representations with the intention that this Panel should take them into account;
• the Panel was not satisfied that any adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance;
• he has not made an application to adjourn today’s hearing; and
• there is a public interest that this matter proceeds expeditiously.

14. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. Having weighed the public interest for expedition in cases against the Registrant’s own interests, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and that there was no unfairness or injustice in doing so.

Background
15. The Registrant is a registered Physiotherapist with the HCPC. At the time of the offences in question, the Registrant was employed by Barts Health NHS Trust at Band 8 as the Clinical Lead in Stroke Rehabilitation and had been in that role since 2015.

16. On 9 January 2024 the Registrant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault by penetration and one count of actual bodily harm at Basildon Crown Court.

17. The impact upon Person A is detailed in her victim impact statement which reflected that the impact was severe, both physically, psychologically, and financially.

18. The Registrant received a custodial sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment on each count of assault by penetration, and to 2 years’ imprisonment for the offence of actual bodily harm. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also made the subject of a barring order, a notification requirement to register with the police on the sex offender’s register indefinitely, and an indefinite restraining order.

19. A copy of the certificate of conviction dated 10 May 2024 has been produced to the Panel.

Decision on Facts
20. The Panel has been shown the certificate of conviction from Basildon Crown Court dated 10 May 2024 in relation to the Registrant. It sets out the offences for which the Registrant was convicted and the sentence imposed on him.

21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It took into account Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules which states that “where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction….shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it is based”. It has also taken into account the HCPC’s Practice Note on ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’.

22. Accordingly, the Panel finds the facts of the convictions proved.

23. The Panel therefore finds the facts of Particulars, 1(a) and 1(b) proved.

Decision on Statutory Ground
24. The Panel next considered the statutory ground. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

25. The Panel has had regard to Article 22 of the Health Professions Order which states that:
This article applies where any allegation is made against a registrant to the effect that:
(a) his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of—
(i) ….,
(ii) ….,

(iii) 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,

26. Because this is a conviction case and the Panel has been provided with the memorandum of conviction, and has found the fact of the convictions proved, the Panel found the statutory ground is made out.

Decision on Impairment
27. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the convictions.

HCPC Submissions
28. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS’s Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and, in particular, to the personal and public components set out within the note.

Personal component
29. Mr Smith submitted that the Registrant’s past acts are not remediable due to the seriousness of that behaviour and an apparent deep-rooted attitudinal concerns. In terms of the personal component, he submitted that there was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has remediated those concerns.

30. Mr Smith identified that at the sentencing hearing reference was made to the fact that the Registrant has undertaken CBT and counselling. However, he stated that Defence Counsel at the sentencing hearing was unable to produce detail of what the outcome was, and nothing has been presented to the Panel for this hearing.

31. Mr Smith therefore submitted that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate that remedial action has been taken.

32. Mr Smith submitted that whilst the Registrant has a clear fitness to practise history and no previous, there was a risk of repetition of his criminal violent behaviour. He submitted that the Registrant has deep rooted attitudinal concerns. He reminded the Panel that the sentencing Judge found that the Registrant had delivered “sadistic sexual violence” against Person A, that what he did was “ritual humiliation”. At page 28, paragraph B the Judge says:
“In my judgment, this was more than red mist, Mr Richards. This was sexual sadism. I don’t accept for a moment that somehow or other, part of you genuinely thought she might welcome such a treatment as fulfilment of some latent sexual fantasy. This was sadistic revenge, administered in a sexual way. There was nothing erotic or consensual about it, and in my judgment, you must have attained some sort of gratification over it all, and you clearly settled on the plan throughout the day.”

33. Mr Smith reminded the Panel the Registrant found the messages on Person A’s phone, then hosted a lunch party, then exacted his revenge. This was, he submitted, calculated.

34. Mr Smith reminded the Panel that in the Probation Officer’s opinion, the Registrant sought to minimise his actions and did not have genuine insight into his behaviour. The officer states that the Registrant was intent on sexual humiliation by way of violent revenge.

35. Mr Smith submitted that, due to the calculated nature of this offence, and the lack of insight or remorse, there was a significant risk of repetition of this conduct in the future.

36. For these reasons, he submitted that the Registrant is impaired on the personal component of impairment.

Public component
37. In relation to the public component, Mr Smith submitted that whilst the conduct did not take place in the context of the Registrant’s employment, the nature of the concerns presented a significant risk to service users and colleagues.

38. He submitted that the Registrant displayed a deep rooted sadistic attitudinal concern. It was submitted this makes him volatile, and could place patients at risk of harm in the future, especially given the vulnerable position service users are in when engaging with the Registrant and the physical nature of his role. Given the underlying facts, the nature of the harm could be severe.

39. Mr Smith reminded the Panel that the sentencing Judge highlighted his surprise that at no point during the protracted assault, did the Registrant have a moment of clarity or question his own actions. He submitted that this lack of insight into his wrongdoing could leak into his professional practice and could place service users and/or colleagues at risk of harm.

40. In addition, Mr Smith submitted that a reasonable member of the public who was informed of the details of the case, would be shocked and troubled to learn that the Registrant was able to work unrestricted.

41. Mr Smith therefore submitted that the Registrant is impaired on both the personal and public components of impairment.

Registrant’s submissions
42. No submissions have been received by or on behalf of the Registrant other than his emails of 4 December 2024 and 7 February 2025 as referred to above in which he sought a consensual disposal by way of a Striking-Off Order.

Panel’s consideration and decision on impairment
43. In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to all the evidence before it. It took account of the submissions of Mr Smith on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant’s email correspondence. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

44. The Panel was mindful that its role was not to go behind the conviction nor was it to seek to retry the criminal case. Rather, its task was to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the criminal offence concerned. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions had brought the Physiotherapist profession into disrepute or had undermined public confidence in that profession.

45. The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel that it should bear in mind the principle of public protection in its broadest sense. The Panel was advised that it could take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the criminal convictions.

46. The Panel has had regard to the sentence imposed, but has also borne in mind that the sentence imposed is not necessarily a good indicator of the seriousness of the offence when considered in a regulatory context in terms of maintaining public confidence in the profession: R (Low) v General Osteopathic Council [2007] EWGC 2839 (Admin). This is because the prime consideration of regulatory tribunals is the protection of the public and of the wider public interest. 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.”

47. In considering the above case law, the Panel was mindful that both the sentence and the Judge’s sentencing remarks reflected serious offending by the Registrant.

48. In considering whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction, the Panel adopted the approach formulated by Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth report of the Shipman inquiry by asking itself the following questions:
Does the Registrant’s conviction, and the facts relating to the conviction show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he:
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 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 profession and/or
d) …..

49. The Panel considered the personal component of impairment and considered the issues of insight and remediation. It noted that since the Registrant’s convictions, there was no meaningful evidence of demonstrable insight or steps towards remediation. In any event, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s behaviour, relating as it did to sadistic sexual violence and assault, is extremely difficult to remediate, and there was no evidence before the Panel that he has done so.

50. Such failures had to be viewed in the context of premeditated, deliberate violence, intending to cause harm to Person A. The Panel considered that his criminal behaviour was demonstrative of a deep-rooted attitudinal behavioural issue which had the potential to recur within a clinical setting with vulnerable service users given his lack of insight and remediation.

51. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant posed an ongoing risk of harm to members of the public. The Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely that it is incumbent on members of the profession to behave lawfully. By failing to do so, his behaviour also brings the profession into disrepute.

52. Given the nature and extent of the Registrant’s offending relating as it did to serious assault by penetration and actual bodily harm, the Panel found that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are all relevant in this case.

53. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions on the personal component of impairment.

54. The Panel then considered the public component of impairment.

55. The Panel has borne in mind the overarching objective of fitness to practise proceedings in that it should consider, not only the need to protect the public, but the need to uphold the reputation of the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. In doing so, the Panel has borne in mind the comments of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) where Mrs Justice Cox noted:
“In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.”

56. The Panel was mindful of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) which states:
9 – Be honest and trustworthy.
9.1. You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

57. Given the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by the Registrant as set out above, and those features identified by the sentencing Judge, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct fell far below this standard expected of him. The Panel considered that a right-minded member of the public, hearing all of the circumstances and evidence of the case, relating to deliberate and intentional sadistic sexual violence, would consider that this case necessitated a finding of current impairment if public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process is to be maintained.

58. The Panel determined that the serious nature of the conviction was such that the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the professions would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. Therefore, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired by reason of his convictions on the public component of impairment.

Decision on Sanction
Submissions
59. Mr Smith drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (“Sanctions Policy”) which contains particular sections on sexual misconduct and criminal convictions. Mr Smith submitted that a Striking-Off Order was the appropriate sanction to impose.

60. Paragraph 85 of the Sanctions Policy refers to registrants on the sex offender’s register, saying ‘a panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database.’

61. Paragraph 93 of the Sanctions Policy states: “Where a registrant has exhibited violent behaviour, this is highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in their profession and pose a risk to the public. In these cases, a more serious sanction may be warranted.”

62. He referred to paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Guidance which indicated that a sanction of a Striking-Off Order may be appropriate for cases of criminal convictions for serious offences and violence. He submitted that only a Striking-Off Order would meet the overarching objective of protecting the public and the public interest.

63. In addition, when considering which sanction to impose in this case, he invited the Panel to consider the following aggravating factors:
• The lack of insight, remorse or apology;
• The Registrant has stated his desire to be removed from the HCPC register. He has not provided any evidence of reflection, remediation or insight for his actions. He has not apologised for his actions and does not address the impact of his conviction on his profession or on public confidence in that profession.

64. Mr Smith identified, in relation to mitigating factors that the Registrant has no previous regulatory findings.

65. In conclusion, he therefore submitted that a Striking-Off Order was appropriate and proportionate.

Registrant’s submissions
66. No submissions have been received by or on behalf of the Registrant other than his emails of 4 December 2024 and 7 February 2025 as referred to above in which he sought a consensual disposal by way of a Striking-Off Order.

Decision
67. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised the Panel that the full range of sanctions is available to it as this was a case involving a criminal conviction, and he reminded the Panel that it was not to go behind the conviction. He advised the Panel that it should bear in mind its duty to protect members of the public and also the public interest which includes maintaining and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, maintaining the reputation of the profession, and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

68. He advised that, whilst the Panel was entitled to take into consideration the sentence that the Criminal Court imposed upon the Registrant, the sentence imposed is not necessarily a good indicator of the seriousness of the matter in the context of regulatory proceedings. That was because the prime considerations that apply in regulatory proceedings were:
a) Protection of the Public;
b) Reputational harm to the profession;
c) Public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process; and
d) Relevant professional standards of behaviour and the seriousness of any departure from those standards.

69. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the case of CHRE v GDC and Fleischmann (2005) EWHC 87 and the general principle that where a practitioner had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, he should not be permitted to resume [his] practice until [he] has satisfactorily completed his sentence. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that as such, it should take into consideration the facts of the offence in question and determine whether or not it was a serious criminal offence. He advised that the seriousness of a criminal offence is not necessarily determined by the type of sentence imposed, but can also be determined by the circumstances of the offending behaviour. These are factors that can affect the reputation of the profession.

70. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it was entitled to take into consideration factors that it considered to be aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the criminal offence when deciding what sanction would be sufficient in the public interest.

71. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that any sanction it imposes must be the least restrictive sanction that is sufficient to protect the public and the public interest. It should take into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. He reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction is not punitive, although it may have that effect. He advised the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

Panel’s consideration and determination
72. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had due regard to the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has considered any aggravating and mitigating factors and has borne in mind the principle of proportionality.

73. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
a) the Registrant had been convicted of two serious criminal offences in relation to assault by penetration and actual bodily harm as reflected in the Judge’s sentencing remarks;
b) the offences were deliberate and premeditated;
c) the Registrant has not demonstrated any meaningful insight into his behaviour since his convictions (noting his guilty pleas at the Crown Court) and there is no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has remediated his behaviour; and
d) the Registrant has not demonstrated any remorse.

74. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
a) The Registrant entered guilty pleas at the Crown Court; and
b) He had a previously good regulatory history.

75. The Panel reminded itself that if a registrant has been convicted of serious criminal offences and is still serving his sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the Panel should not permit the registrant to resume their practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed CHRE v GDC and Fleischmann (2005) EWHC
87. The Panel noted that the Registrant is still subject to a prison sentence and remains subject to registration on the sex offenders’ register. The Panel could not therefore see any good reason to depart from the above principle.

76. The Panel first considered taking no action but concluded that, given the seriousness of the criminal offences committed, this would be wholly inappropriate and inadequate given the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances.

77. The Panel considered mediation but considered that this was not an appropriate outcome given the facts of this case in that it would not be relevant to addressing the public interest concerns identified.

78. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99 - 102 of the Sanctions Policy as to when such an order might be appropriate. The Panel determined that the circumstances of the criminal offences are such that a Caution Order is also not appropriate to meet the public interest concerns identified for the same reason as set out above.

79. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order and had regard to paragraphs 105 - 117 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has had regard to the fact that there are no concerns with the Registrant’s practice or competency as a Physiotherapist. However, the nature and seriousness of the criminal offences makes a Conditions of Practice Order inappropriate as a sanction. A Conditions of Practice Order, which focusses on the need to remedy practice deficiencies, would not be appropriate or relevant to the facts of this case. In any event, such a sanction would be wholly unworkable and impracticable given the Registrant’s lack of engagement save for his stated wish to be removed from the register.

80. The Panel then considered whether a period of suspension would be a sufficient and proportionate response. It had regard to paragraphs 118- 121 of the Sanctions Policy.

81. The Panel bore in mind the findings it had already made, namely that the Registrant has been convicted of serious criminal offences and has identified the need to protect the public and public interest. There was no demonstrable evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has developed insight or remediated his failings. Having done so, it concluded that such a sanction would be inadequate to protect the public and maintain a proper degree of confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and to declare and maintain proper standards among fellow professionals.

82. The Panel therefore went on to consider striking the Registrant’s name off the HCPC Register of Physiotherapists. It had regard to paragraphs 127-132 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel took into account the impact that such an order would have on the Registrant in terms of his finances and his reputation, noting that the Registrant is currently serving a prison sentence.

83. In reaching its decision, the Panel had particular regard to paragraphs 82 and 85 of the Sanctions Policy. Having done so, it concluded that the Registrant’s convictions were for conduct that was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register. The nature and gravity of the Registrant’s convictions was such that only a Striking-Off Order would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour, to maintain the reputation of the profession, and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

84. In the light of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking-Off Order.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Leslie Richards from the Physiotherapist part of the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order Application
1. Mr Smith made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for the maximum period of 18 months to cover the 28 day appeal period and the time that might be required to conclude any appeal. He reminded the Panel of its powers pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

2. The application was made on the basis of the serious nature of the Registrant’s offending, the Judge’s sentencing remarks and the sentence imposed. He also submitted that in the circumstances, the public would expect an interim order to be put in place to protect the public interest.

3. Having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who made reference to the case of Sanusi v General Medical Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1172, the Panel decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed and hear the application in the absence of the Registrant. The Registrant was advised in the Notice of Hearing dated 5 December 2024 that an application for an interim order might be made. There was nothing to indicate that the Registrant wished to make submissions in relation to this application, and the Panel concluded that it was in the public interest to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and that there was no unfairness or injustice to the Registrant in doing so.

4. Having heard submissions from Mr Smith, on behalf of the HCPC and having taken advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that for the reasons set out in its determination on impairment and sanction, and the ongoing risks identified, that an interim order was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise in the public interest.

5. The Panel did not consider that the risks in this case could be addressed by an Interim Conditions of Practice Order because of its earlier conclusions that conditions would not be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public or the public interest.

Interim Order
6. The Panel therefore imposed an Interim Suspension Order, for a period of eighteen months 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. An 18 month Interim Suspension Order was required to cover the appeal period, should this decision be appealed.

7. 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 Leslie Richards