Blessan T Philips

Preliminary Matters

Application for hearing in private

1. Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC applied for the Panel to hear parts of the hearing in private in order to protect the Registrant’s health and private life.

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

3. The Panel referred to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) 2003 Rules, which provides that:

"The proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional ... the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing".

4. The Panel was mindful that during the course of the hearing there may be reference to the Registrant’s health and private family life. The Panel therefore determined that those relevant parts of the hearing, to include the Registrant’s evidence, should be held in private, to protect the private life of the Registrant.

Application to amend the Allegation

5. At the commencement of the Hearing, Ms Collins applied to amend the particulars of the Allegation made by the HCPC against the Registrant. Notice of the proposed amendments had been provided to the Registrant by email dated 13 January 2025.

6. The HCPC sought to amend the Allegation on the basis that it more accurately reflects the evidence in relation to the Certificate of Conviction, namely the date of Conviction. The HCPC sought to change the dates in the Allegation from 21 September 2022, which is the date of sentencing, to 18 August 2022 which is the date of Conviction.

7. The HCPC’s application to amend was not opposed by the Registrant.

8. The Panel has a discretion to amend the Allegation providing it does not cause unfairness to any of the parties or prejudice the Registrant. As to the exercise of that discretion the Panel considered that the proposed amendment did not have any impact upon the "nature" of the Allegation against the Registrant and that he was not thereby disadvantaged in his ability to defend himself. The fact that the Registrant did not oppose the application was also taken into consideration.

9. Having carefully considered the matter and following advice from the Legal Assessor, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate to allow the amendment to the dates, as applied for to accurately reflect the evidence.

Background

10. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP). The Registrant was employed by Spire Hartswood Hospital (‘the Hospital’) from 14 September 2017 as a Theatre Practitioner. The Registrant’s employment contract was later terminated following a disciplinary hearing in October 2022.

11. On 4 February 2022, the Registrant was arrested on suspicion of Driving with Excess Alcohol. The HCPC was informed of the Registrant’s arrest from Essex Police via a Common Law Disclosure Report dated 17 February 2022.

12. On 4 February 2022 Essex Police were contacted by the Ambulance Service who were reporting that the Registrant was found in his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The vehicle was later found by police, stationary in the live lane of a carriageway with the driver slumped over the wheel. At the time of the incident there were two children in the car, [Redacted]. A breath test of the Registrant revealed a reading of 187mg of alcohol in 100ml in his blood. The legal limit being 80mg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

13. On 30 June 2022, the Registrant was arrested on suspicion of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the specified limit of alcohol. The HCPC was informed of the Registrant’s arrest from Essex Police via a Common Law Disclosure Report dated 7 July 2022.

14. On 30 June 2022, the Registrant was found intoxicated behind the wheel of his parked vehicle at around 16:20 by a member of the public, who reported this to police. On police arrival, the Registrant initially refused to provide a sample of breath and was conveyed to custody. Whilst in custody, a breath test revealed a reading of 139 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath, almost four times over the prescribed limit of 35mg of alcohol in breath per 100 millilitres of breath. The Registrant was suspended from work after his arrest on 30 June 2022.

15. The Registrant entered not guilty pleas on 9 June 2022 to the February matter. On 18 August 2022, after initially entering a not guilty plea, the Registrant was found convicted of drink driving. For this offence he was sentenced to 4 weeks in custody suspended for 18 months. In the 18 month period he was further ordered to comply with [Redacted] as directed by his responsible officer.

16. On 18 August 2022 the Registrant was also convicted of wilfully assaulting, ill treating, neglecting, abandoning or exposing Child A and B in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering or injury to health. For each of these offences of child neglect, the Registrant was sentenced to 8 months in custody, suspended for 18 months. He was further ordered to comply with [Redacted] as directed by his responsible officer.

17. On 1 August 2022, the Registrant also pleaded guilty to being in charge of a motor vehicle on 30 June 2022, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath namely 139 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath exceeded the prescribed limit. On 21 August 2022 he was sentenced to 2 weeks custody suspended for 18 months for this offence. [Redacted] as directed by his responsible officer.

18. The Registrant’s sentences for all offences were directed to run concurrently totalling 8 months in custody, suspended for 18 months. The Registrant was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £128 and Crown Prosecution Service costs of £725. He was also disqualified from driving for a period of 17 months, subject to successfully completing a drink drive course.

19. The HCPC subsequently received a completed referral form from the Registrant's employer, Spire Hartswood Hospital, dated 26 October 2022.

20. The HCPC did not call any live evidence at the final hearing and relied on the documentary evidence in the bundle to prove the facts of the Allegation.

21. At the outset of the Hearing, the Registrant made admissions to Particulars 1 - 4 of the Allegation.

The Registrant’s Evidence

22. [Redacted]

23. [Redacted]

24. [Redacted]

25. [Redacted]

26. [Redacted]

27. [Redacted]

28. [Redacted]

29. [Redacted]

30. [Redacted]

31. [Redacted]

32. [Redacted]

Decision on Facts

33. The Panel was provided with the following documents:

• Certified Certificate of Conviction dated 21 October 2022.

34. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so the particulars of the Allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

35. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC and the admissions made by the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS' Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and the Practice note on “Admissions”.

36. With regard to Particulars 1 - 4 the Panel was provided by the HCPC with evidence of the Certificate of Conviction dated 21 October 2022 and took account of the admissions made by the Registrant.

37. The Panel noted the submissions made by the HCPC and the advice of the Legal Assessor 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 was based, pursuant to Rule 10 (1)(d) of the (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003.

38. The Panel noted that a Conviction Allegation can be proved by the production of the certified copy of the Memorandum of Conviction. The Panel was therefore satisfied from the evidence produced that Particulars 1 - 4 were found proved.

Decision on Grounds

39. The HCPC rely on the statutory ground of Conviction pursuant to Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001, which provides that one of the grounds upon which an Allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practice 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”.

40. The Panel found Particulars 1 - 4 proved and the Panel was satisfied from the evidence produced that the ground for Conviction was established.

Decision on Impairment

41. The Panel considered the written and oral submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the oral evidence and written reflection from the Registrant. The Panel noted that the Registrant accepted that his fitness to practise is impaired.

42. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment".

43. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised the Panel to consider the criteria set out in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927, namely whether the Registrant:

• Has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a member or members of the public at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

• Has in the past and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or

• Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

• Has the Registrant in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable in the future to act dishonestly.

44. The issue of impairment is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, and it required the Panel to consider the central issues of insight, remediation, remorse and the risk of repetition. The Panel should look to past conduct and to the future in assessing risk of repetition. The Panel must at all times keep at the forefront of its mind the fundamental considerations and overarching objectives of protecting the public and the wider public interest, including the reputation of, and public confidence in the profession.

45. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his Conviction, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment.

46. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

47. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel carefully considered all the documentary evidence provided including the documentary evidence that the Registrant had attended a Rehabilitation course in India.

48. The Panel noted the serious nature of the Convictions, two of which involved putting [Redacted] children at risk and for which the Registrant received a suspended custodial sentence. The Panel had regard to the fact that a further similar offence was committed within a relatively short period of time. The Panel noted the high readings in relation to the two drink driving matters. The Panel was of the view that the not guilty plea entered initially demonstrated that there was evidence of lack of insight. The Panel considered that the Registrant had limited insight in relation to the impact his offending had on the public and the harm that may have been caused.

49. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not provided any independent evidence [Redacted]. The Panel determined that there was limited evidence before them to demonstrate remediation or insight. The only testimonial before the Panel was from a person who [Redacted]. However, there were no testimonial submitted form work colleagues regarding the Registrant’s professional practice and conduct. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s reflection lacked sufficient detail in terms of what the expectations are of being a registered professional.

50. Given the limited evidence of insight and in the absence of any significant independent detailed evidence of remediation, the Panel considered that there would be a significant risk of repetition if the Registrant were permitted to practise without restriction.

51. The Panel also found the “public” component of impairment to be satisfied in this case. The Panel considered in the absence of the required evidence, that the Registrant is a risk to the public. A member of the public, knowing of the Registrant’s Conviction would be shocked and undoubtedly expect some restriction to be placed on his registration. Public confidence in the profession and in the regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

52. The Panel accordingly found that the Registrants fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public component.

Decision on Sanction

53. The Panel took into account the written submissions of Ms Collins on behalf of the HCPC. She took the Panel to relevant parts of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy dated March 2019 and reminded the Panel that the primary function of any sanction is to protect the public and this includes consideration of the following:

• Any risks that the Registrant might pose to those who use or need their services;

• The deterrent effect on other Registrant’s

• Public confidence in the profession concerned; and

• Public confidence in the regulatory process.

54. Ms Collins referred the Panel to the Sanctions guidance surrounding Convictions and she advised of the options open to the Panel, indicating these should be considered in ascending order.

55. Ms Collins reminded the Panel that the Registrant pleaded guilty to being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst over the legal limit and that this may be evidence of some insight. However, she submitted that the other 3 offences were denied and he was found guilty by way of summary trial.

56. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel may think the Registrant is yet to fully reflect of his actions. She stated that the panel may think his reflections do not fully address the impact that his Convictions had on his profession or the public confidence in that profession.

57. Ms Collins reminded the Panel that the Registrant points out in his written reflection that he has never harmed any patient or the public, she submitted that he fails to appreciate the serious risk of harm he put himself, [Redacted] children and the public in by his previous actions.

58. Ms Collins advised the Panel that the Registrant did apologise for his actions when giving evidence during the proceedings. As set out in the policy, genuine insight is likely to be demonstrated by timely remorse, apology and remediation, exhibited ahead of any hearing. Whilst insight expressed during a hearing may be taken into account, she submitted that insight expressed in advance is likely to carry more weight.

59. In terms of remediation, Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant had provided some information to the Panel. However, she stated that the Panel may feel that further reflection or further remediation is required going forward.

60. The Registrant provided further documentation in relation to an IT course which he had undertaken and completed in October 2024. In his submissions to the Panel the Registrant submitted that he had taken steps to obtain as much information for the Panel that he could [Redacted].

61. The Registrant submitted that he has reflected on his conduct over the last 27 months. He accepts that his mistakes were inappropriate and unprofessional, and he is embarrassed and sorry for what happened.

62. The Registrant indicated his desire to return to work and to be given an opportunity to demonstrate that there will be no risk of repetition of his conduct.

63. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s “Sanctions Policy” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession.

64. The Panel noted that the Registrant has a previous good character. With regards to mitigation, the Panel took into account the following factors:

• Some insight demonstrated;

• Expressed remorse [Redacted];

• Apologised for his conduct;

• One supporting character reference.

65. By way of aggravating factors:

• Limited evidence of reflection or remediation

• Conviction for serious offences

• Repetition of similar offence within a short period of time

• Not guilty plea

66. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively. The Panel noted that the Registrant referred to his conduct as a mistake. However, the Panel are of the view that driving with excess alcohol on two occasions is not accidental behaviour. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant did not fully understand the danger associated with his conduct and therefore his insight is developing.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Philips with a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. As the Suspension Order cannot take effect until the end of the 28 day appeal period, the Panel has considered whether an Interim Order is required in the specific circumstances of this case. It may only make an Interim Order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest or in your own interest until the sanction takes effect. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor.

Submissions on Interim Order

2. The Panel took account of the submissions made by Ms Collins who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Interim Orders”. She submitted that an Interim Order was necessary to address the risk to public and to uphold the confidence in profession. She informed the Panel that the sanction which it has imposed would not take effect for 28 days. She submitted that an 18 month Interim Order would address the risks identified by the Panel and cover any potential period of appeal.

3. The Registrant made no contrary submissions.

Decision on Interim Order

4. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The Panel had regard to the seriousness of the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the Substantive Order in reaching the decision to impose an Interim Order.

5. The Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case, due to the reasons already identified in the Panel’s determination for imposing the Substantive Order.

6. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order for 18 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.

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 Blessan T Philips