Omar Barry

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. A notice of hearing which set out the date, time and location of this hearing was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 4 February 2025. The Panel has seen an email dated 4 February 2025 which confirms delivery of that email. The Panel is satisfied that there has been good service of the notice of hearing in accordance with the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules).
Proceeding in Absence
2. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. He had however written to the HCPC on 10 March 2025 to confirm that he did not intend to attend today’s hearing.

3. Having heard submissions on behalf of the HCPC, the Panel had regard to the HCPC practice note on “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

4. The Panel noted that the Registrant had engaged with the HCPC and was aware of the date, time and purpose of this hearing. The Registrant has not requested an adjournment. It is clear from the HCPC’s correspondence with the Registrant that he expects the hearing to proceed in his absence. An adjournment to a later date would not therefore secure his attendance.

5. The Panel noted that it had received written representations from the Registrant which it had read and understood. In these circumstances it was satisfied that it could ensure that this hearing was fair even in the absence of the Registrant.

6. The Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend or be represented at this hearing. It drew no conclusions adverse to the Registrant from his decision not to attend. The Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Background
7. The Registrant is a registered physiotherapist. The Registrant attended a music festival weekend in July 2022. Whilst there he ingested Benzoylecgonine, a controlled drug. Later as he was driving home the Registrant lost consciousness and crashed his car.

8. On 8 February 2023 the Registrant was convicted of the offence of “Drive motor vehicle with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the specified limit” in that “On 25/07/2022 at ALBOURNE drove a motor vehicle on a road, namely A23, when the proportion of a controlled drug, namely BENZOYLECGONINE, in your blood, namely 639ug/L, exceeded the specified limit” contrary to section 5A(1)(a) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.’

9. The Registrant was disqualified from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay costs, a victim surcharge and a fine.

Decision on Facts
10. The Registrant admits the facts of the Allegation.

Decision on Grounds
11. This is a conviction case. The Panel has seen a copy of an email from the Surrey and Sussex Magistrates Court to the HCPC dated 7 August 2023 which confirms the fact and circumstances of the Registrant’s conviction and records the sanction imposed by the Court.

Decision on Impairment
12. The Panel notes that the Registrant admits that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction. However, the question of impairment is a matter for the Panel exercising its own independent judgment. Having regard to all of the information available to it, the Panel is satisfied that the fact of the Registrant’s conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled drug means that his fitness to practise is impaired.

Submissions
13. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Girven provided a skeleton argument dated 18 March 2025 and made oral submissions in support of the application for consensual disposal of this matter. In essence she submitted that this case was suitable for disposal by consent because: -
a. The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation and that his fitness to practice is impaired.
b. The Registrant has demonstrated insight; and
c. The proposed sanction of a 12-month Caution Order adequately protects the public and upholds the public interest.

14. On the completed pro forma application for disposal by consent the Registrant indicated that he had read the relevant HCPC guidance. He also indicated that he accepted that a 12-month Caution Order was an appropriate sanction in all the circumstances of his case.

Decision on Sanction
15. Before reaching its decision, the Panel read all the documents produced at the hearing. It considered the guidance contained in the HCPC Practice Note on Disposal of Cases by Consent and the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

16. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant admits the Allegation and it is satisfied that his fitness to practise is impaired.

17. The Panel considers that the Registrant’s conviction can properly be considered an isolated incident arising out of an isolated episode of drug use in July 2022. The Panel is fortified in its view by responses to questions from the HCPC provided by the Registrant’s Operational Manager on 21 March 2023; and by the record of a risk assessment conducted by the Registrant’s employer on 9 March 2023. Those documents also indicate that the Registrant was a well-regarded employee and that there were no concerns about his clinical practice or other conduct.

18. The Registrant provided a reflective statement in which he acknowledged the seriousness of his conviction and his offending behaviour and the risks that it had posed to members of the public and to the reputation of the profession of physiotherapist. He expressed remorse which the Panel is satisfied is genuine. The reflective statement also evidences the Registrant’s insight into his conviction and its consequences.

19. In so far as it is possible to remediate his conduct, which occurred outside the workplace, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant has done so. He has not received any further convictions. He has continued to work well and there are no concerns about his work with patients. He has demonstrated a good level of insight. The Panel notes that the Registrant has worked in his chosen profession without incident for almost three years.

20. The Panel is satisfied that the risk of repetition of the offending behaviour and of a criminal conviction are low.

21. The Panel notes that the Registrant has not been subject to an interim order at any point since the index offence.

22. In these circumstances the Panel is satisfied that this is a case where a Caution Order might be indicated by the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

23. Balancing the Registrant’s interests with the wider public interest the Panel is satisfied that a Caution Order will secure the appropriate level of public protection. Having regard to the passage of time since the offence and the conviction, and the lack of recurrence, the Panel considers that a Caution Order of 12 months duration is a proportionate sanction. It is satisfied that a well-informed member of the public would not be concerned that the Registrant has been permitted to continue in practice subject to a 12 month Caution Order. The Panel concluded that there are no workable conditions of practise which could be formulated in the circumstances of this case and a Suspension Order would be disproportionate. The Panel has therefore concluded that approval of the proposed Consent Order is both proportionate and appropriate.

The Registrar is directed to annotate the registration of Mr Omar Barry with a Caution Order for a period of 12 months from the date of this Order.

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.

History of Hearings for Omar Barry