Jaymie-Lee Fines

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent by email on 20 May 2025 to the address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (proof of service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended).

Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPC Practice Note “Proceeding in Absence”. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing, as permitted by Rule 11 of the Conduct & Competence Rules, for the following reasons:
a) the Panel noted that the Registrant had provided it with a reflective statement which outlined that she was aware of today’s hearing and provided reasons for her non-attendance at the review hearing. The Panel therefore formed the view that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing;
b) the Panel also noted that there has been no application to adjourn and no indication from the Registrant that she would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date and therefore re-listing the hearing would serve no useful purpose;
c) whilst the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to make oral submissions to it, the Panel noted that the Registrant had been provided with every opportunity to attend the hearing and she had failed to do so. The Panel also noted that any disadvantage caused to the Registrant in not attending, was mitigated by the Panel having regard to her written representations; and
d) finally, the Panel noted its duty to act in a manner which was in the public interest and in order to achieve that aim should act in a fair, economical and expeditious manner. Therefore, taking all of the aforementioned points into account and noting that the efficient disposal of cases concerning practitioners is of very real importance, the Panel determined that they should proceed in the absence of the Registrant because the public interest in proceeding with the case outweighed any detriment to the Registrant in not being present.

Privacy Application
4. The Panel noted, at the outset of the hearing, that reference had been made during the Substantive Hearing, to matters relating to the Registrant’s private life and health it had regard to, amongst other things, Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure Rules) 2003 (hereafter ‘the Rules’) and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’.

5. Having done so, the Panel determined, given the nature of the Registrant’s submissions to previous panels and having regard to the material before it regarding the Registrant’s private life and health, that there was a need for the hearing to be conducted in private, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the 2003 Rules. The Panel considered that the Registrant would suffer disproportionate damage if it did not do so. In making its decision, the Panel also determined that it would not be feasible to move between public and private session.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Jaymie-Lee Fines for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing order.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Jaymie-Lee Fines