Mark William Stokes

Profession: Operating department practitioner

Registration Number: ODP14875

Hearing Type: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 07/07/2025 End: 17:00 07/07/2025

Location: Virtual via video conference.

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Suspended

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

As a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP14875) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:

1. Between 13 April 2020 and 1 July 2020, you did not attend work and did not notify your employer of your continued absence.

2. Between 22 April 2020 and 1 July 2020, you did not cooperate with an investigation carried out by The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, in that:

a. You did not respond to one or more attempts to contact you by telephone and letter in relation to your unauthorised absence from work;

b. [Not proved].

3. The matters set out in Particulars 1 and 2 constitute misconduct.

4. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practice is impaired.

 

 

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Service and Proceeding in Absence

1. The Panel was satisfied on the basis of the documents before it that the Registrant had been properly served with Notice of this hearing. It had sight of the letter sent by email sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 6 June 2025 informing him of the date and time of the remote hearing. The Panel was aware in view of the legal advice it received, that 28 days’ notice is required and that the duty on the HCPC is to send notice to the Registrant’s address as it appears on the Register. The Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021 allow for the service of documents by email. The Panel had sight of the email delivery receipt and the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, which confirmed his email address. As such, the Panel determined that good service had been effected.

2. Ms Khorassani made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Panel could be satisfied that the Registrant was aware of this hearing and that he had voluntarily absented himself. Ms Khorassani referred to the number of attempts by the HCPC to engage with the Registrant, to which there had been no response. She submitted that this was a mandatory review, and it was fair, proportionate and in the interests of justice to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

3. The Panel was aware that in accordance with rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules it had a discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In determining whether in all the circumstances it was fair to do so, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence. It was aware, in view of the legal advice it received, of the factors which should inform its decision, as set out in R v Jones [2003] UKPC 34. It had regard to the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 where the judge summarised the position as follows: “Where there is good reason not to proceed the case should be adjourned; where there is not however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

4. The Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself. It was satisfied, in view of the attempts to contact him and engage him with the process that he was likely to be aware of the hearing. There was no basis upon which the Panel could conclude that an adjournment was likely to secure his attendance at a later date, particularly as the Registrant did not attend the substantive hearing. This was a mandatory review which must take place before 27 July 2025, and there was insufficient time for 28 days’ notice of a future hearing to be given. As such, it was in the public interest for the matter to he heard today in the Registrant’s absence.

 

Background

5. The Registrant is an HCPC-registered Operating Department Practitioner (“ODP”).

6. In 2009, he began working as an ODP at The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust’s (“the Trust”) Theatres Department.

7. [Redacted].

8. [Redacted].

9. Between 13 April 2020 and 19 April 2020, and again from 3 May 2020, until his dismissal on 24 June 2020, the Registrant was absent without, it was alleged, notifying his employer. This led to unauthorised and unpaid leave from 11 April 2020 to 19 April 2020. After a period of annual leave (20 April to 1 May 2020), the Registrant did not return to work, resulting in further unauthorised and unpaid leave.

10. The Trust held a disciplinary hearing for the Registrant on Wednesday 24 June 2020. The allegations against the Registrant were (1) Failure to follow reasonable management instruction and (2) Repeated unauthorised absence. The allegations were upheld and the Registrant was dismissed the same day.

11. The Trust referred the Registrant to the HCPC on 30 July 2020.

12. The case was initially reviewed by an Investigating Committee Panel on 6 October 2021, and it determined there was a case to answer regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practice, based on misconduct and/or health grounds.

13. The case was then referred to the Health Committee. During the course of the Health Committee hearing, which the Registrant did not attend, the allegation of impairment of fitness to practise by reason of health was found not proved.

14. Subsequently, the misconduct allegations were referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee and found proved at the hearing conducted between 25 and 27 February 2025. The Registrant’s fitness to practise was found impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. A four-month suspension order was imposed.

Submissions

15. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant remains impaired. She submitted that he had been made aware by the decision of the previous panel that the current suspension order would be reviewed, and suggestions had been made as to what the Registrant may wish to provide to assist this reviewing Panel. Ms Khorassani submitted that a number of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics were engaged as follows:

Standard 2.6 – You must work in partnership with colleagues;

Standard 2.8 – You must treat colleagues in a professional manner showing respect;

Standard 6.1 – You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues;

Standard 6.2 – You must not do anything which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk;

Standard 9.1 – You must make sure your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you;

Standard 9.6 – You must co-operate with any investigation into your conduct or competence.

16. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Panel had an overarching duty to ensure that the public is protected, public confidence in the profession is maintained and that proper professional standards are upheld. The risks remained as found by the previous panel. She invited the Panel to extend the current suspension order for a period it deemed suitable.

17. No submission or evidence of any sort had been provided by the Registrant.

Legal Advice

18. The Panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor. It was aware that the purpose of review is to consider:

• whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and

• if so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public.

19. If the Panel finds that the Registrant remains impaired, its powers in summary, in accordance with Article 30 Health Professions Order are to:

• Extend the Order;

• Replace the Order with any other Order that could have been made at the substantive hearing;

• With effect from the expiry of the Suspension Order make a Conditions of Practice Order.

20. There is a persuasive burden on the Registrant as set out in Abrahaem v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin).

21. The Panel’s role was to determine whether the Registrant remains impaired and if so, whether the existing order should be continued or another sanction imposed to protect the public. It must assess the Registrant’s insight and remediation and hence whether there remains a risk of repetition. Before the Registrant is permitted to return to unrestricted practice the Panel needs to be satisfied that he is fit to do so.

 

Decision

22. The Panel began by noting the basis for the original panel’s finding of impairment. The panel at the final hearing considered that the Registrant’s conduct was remediable, but that he had failed to remediate as he had not engaged with the process. He had not demonstrated insight or remorse and as such there was an inevitable risk of repetition. In that panel’s view, there was impairment in line with the ‘tests’ set out in The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin); the Registrant had put patients at unwarranted risk of harm, brought the profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of the profession (because he had not put the welfare of patients first).

23. The Panel then considered whether the Registrant remains impaired. As he has not engaged, there was no evidence of any insight, remorse or remediation. The Standards referred to by Ms Khorassani were, in the Panel’s view, all engaged. The Panel had no assurance that the Registrant’s misconduct would not be repeated, posing risks to service users and colleagues as found by the previous panel. It followed that there remained a risk of repetition and the Registrant remains impaired on the public protection limb.

24. The Panel went on to consider whether the public interest requires a finding of impairment as at today. The Registrant had provided no evidence that he understood or appreciated the likely damage to the public’s trust in the profession that necessarily results from repeated failures to attend work without notification, impacting on colleagues and service users. The Panel therefore determined that an informed member of the public would expect a further finding of impairment in order to uphold and maintain proper professional standards. The Registrant’s conduct had brought the profession into disrepute, and this had not been acknowledged or remediated. The Registrant remains impaired in the public interest.

25. Having found current impairment on both limbs, the Panel went on to consider the appropriate and proportionate order which would protect the public and uphold public confidence in the profession. Taking no action or varying the order to a caution order was not appropriate as these would not mitigate the risks to the public. The Panel then considered a conditions of practice order, but concluded that in the absence of any engagement by the Registrant, it had no assurance that any conditions would be complied with. Therefore, such an order was not workable.

26. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s misconduct was not at the most serious end of the spectrum, and it was therefore fair and proportionate to give him a further opportunity to engage. Extending the suspension order would achieve this. Strike off at this first review would, in the Panel’s view be disproportionate because the misconduct was relatively easily remediable and it appeared that the evidence before the previous panel was that the Registrant was an otherwise competent practitioner.

27. As to the length of the extension, the Panel determined that six months was proportionate. This would allow time for the Registrant to re-engage with the process, reflect and demonstrate insight. If he were to do so, the likelihood was that he would, in due course, be able to return to practice in the profession in which he had served patients for a number of years. There was a public interest in keeping this option open to him, and providing a realistic time for him to achieve remediation.

28. The Panel extended the Suspension Order for 6 months. This extension will take effect from the expiry of the current Order.

29. The order will be reviewed before its expiry. The Panel considered, in line with the view of the original panel, that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by:

• the Registrant’s engagement with the HCPC and attendance at the review hearing;

• a reflective piece, explaining the Registrant’s behaviour and demonstrating the Registrant’s awareness of the impact of his conduct on patients, colleagues, the profession, the HCPC as Regulator and the general public;

• an update on the Registrant’s current health, if that was a contributing factor;

• evidence of Continuing Professional Development;

• references and testimonials from any paid or unpaid work in any field.

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to extend the current Suspension Order for a period of six months.

Notes

The Order imposed today will apply from 27 July 2025.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 27 January 2026.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mark William Stokes

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
07/07/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Suspended
25/02/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended
;