Paul J Cronje-Jarvis

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’) provide at paragraph 3(1)(b) that notice may be served on a registrant by posting it to their address as it appears in the register or sending it to an electronic mail address provided by the registrant for communications. Paragraph 6(2) of the Rules confirms that at least 28 days’ notice of a hearing must be provided to a registrant.

2. The Panel reviewed a 5 page Service Bundle which contained a notice of hearing, sent to the Registrant on 6 June 2025 via email at 4:25 PM, and an extract of the Register showing the contact details provided by the Registrant and held by the HCPC. It also received legal advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied, and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Service of Documents’.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been duly served upon the Registrant via his email address more than 28 days before the hearing. It was therefore content that the HCPC had discharged its duty to ensure that the Registrant had been afforded an opportunity to appear before it and be heard, as set out at Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (‘the Order’). In these circumstances, the Panel determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected.

Proceeding in Absence

4. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant confirmed, via two separate emails to the HCPC, that he would not be attending the hearing. The Registrant confirmed he wished to remain on the Register but would not attend the hearing or provide information to the hearing. The Registrant was reminded of the purpose and remit of the hearing but did not request an adjournment or to be represented in the proceedings. In the circumstances, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel was entitled to find that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings and therefore that the hearing should proceed in his absence.

5. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it applied, and had regard to the practice notes provided by the HCPTS in relation to proceeding in the absence of the Registrant. It noted that the Registrant confirmed via emails on 20 June 2022 (13:14:36) and 23 June 2025 (16:35:09) that he would not attend the hearing or provide any evidence to the hearing. The reason or his non-attendance was because he was working. The Registrant asked the HCPC to “Please just inform me of the outcome.”

6. Having determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected by the HCPTS, the Panel carefully considered all of the circumstances of the case to inform its assessment of the fairness to the HCPC, the public and the Registrant in respect of whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. It noted that the notice of hearing specifically informed the Registrant that the hearing could proceed in his absence if proper notice was given of the hearing.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting as required by the Rules. It was also satisfied that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to engage the Registrant in the proceedings. The email correspondence provided to the Panel demonstrated that following the Registrant’s second email, the HCPC contacted him to confirm that the order could be extended and listed the information identified by the substantive hearing panel as being helpful to the reviewing panel. It also provided him with the practice note on adjournments.

8. The Registrant therefore was, in the Panel’s view, maintaining limited engagement with his regulator and consistently stating that he did not intend to attend the hearing or provide information for the hearing. There had been no request for an adjournment by the Registrant, nor had he expressed an interest in being represented at the hearing. There was no indication that the Registrant would attend the hearing on a future date in the event that the hearing was adjourned.

9. In considering fairness to the HCPC and the public when making its decision whether to proceed with the hearing or not, the Panel noted that the HCPC attended the hearing and was in a position to proceed. The steps it had taken to secure the Registrant’s attendance were reasonable in all the circumstances.

10. The Panel gave careful consideration to the prejudice that may be caused to the Registrant by the matter proceeding in his absence but was content that it would mitigate any disadvantage as much as possible. It was mindful of the practice note issued by the HCPTS in respect of ‘Unrepresented Registrants’ and the fact that registrants should not be able to frustrate the efficient administration of regulatory matters by simply not engaging in the proceedings.

11. In the circumstances, the Panel determined that the public interest favoured the proceedings continuing in the absence of the Registrant. The hearing had been convened to undertake a mandatory review of an order imposed following a substantive hearing, with the HCPC in attendance and ready to proceed with the matter. Further, the Registrant had not attended the substantive hearing and confirmed on two recent occasions via email that he did not wish to attend the review hearing. He had not requested to be represented or sought an adjournment. The Panel was satisfied that the hearing could fairly proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Proceeding in Private

12. The Presenting Officer applied for the Panel to proceed with the hearing in private, given that it relates to the health of the Registrant. He also sought the Panel’s agreement to a professional colleague observing the hearing in the event that the privacy application was successful.

13. The Panel noted that the substantive allegation in this matter related to the health of the Registrant. It was mindful of the practice note – ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ – and the provisions of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel was satisfied that, given the circumstances of this case, it would not be possible to hold part of the hearing in public. It was therefore content for the entirety of the hearing to be conducted in private, and that the observer could remain in the hearing.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Paul J. Cronje-Jarvis for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 25 July 2025 and be reviewed again before its expiry on 25 July 2026.

History of Hearings for Paul J Cronje-Jarvis