Christel Rogers

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.Mr Anderson on behalf of the HCPC submitted that there has been good service of the notice of this hearing.

2. The Panel has seen the Notice of today’s hearing dated 16 April 2025, which the HCPC sent by email to the Registrant at her registered email address. The Notice of Hearing made clear that this hearing would take place today as a virtual hearing. The Notice informed the Registrant of the time and date of this hearing. She was invited to make submissions. Delivery of the Notice was confirmed by an electronic message dated 16 April 2025, which the Panel has seen.

3. Having seen the relevant service documents and having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that good service of the Notice of Hearing has taken place.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

4. The Panel has seen an email dated 6 May 2025 from the Registrant to the Hearings Officer. In that email, the Registrant stated that she would not be attending this hearing, would not be represented at it and would not be submitting any further documents. The Registrant again confirmed her non-attendance by a further email dated 7 May 2025, which the Panel has seen.

5. Mr Anderson on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the Panel should review the Substantive Order in the absence of the Registrant.

6. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

7. The Panel was aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was one to be taken with great care and caution. However, the Panel has decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. Its reasons are as follows:

(a) Service of the appropriate notice of this hearing has been properly effected.

(b) The Registrant has by her emails dated 6 and 7 May 2025 stated that she will not be attending this hearing. She has also stated that she will not be represented or providing further documents. She has thereby waived her right to attend this hearing.

(c) The Registrant’s participation in the Substantive Hearing, which was conducted virtually, was very limited. After an initial appearance, she consented to the hearing proceeding in her absence.

(d) The current Suspension Order expires on the 28 May 2025 [tomorrow].

(e) The Registrant has made no substantive engagement with this review hearing and has not provided the Panel with any information that might assist it.

(f) There is no reason to suppose that an adjournment would result in the future attendance of the Registrant.

(g) This is a mandatory review hearing. It is in the public interest and in the interest of the Registrant that it should proceed as scheduled.

(h) The Panel cannot identify any prejudice to the Registrant that could arise from proceeding in her absence.

Background as taken from the determination of the Substantive Order panel

8. The background to this matter as it appears in the determination of the Substantive `Order Panel is set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Order Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets;

(2) The Registrant is a Registered Occupational Therapist. At the time of the events giving rise to the Allegation she was not working as an Occupational Therapist.

(3) On 17 June 2022, following a roadside breath test that took place between 22:03 and 23:00, the Registrant was arrested by a Police Constable for driving a vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol and hitting two other parked vehicles. This took place in a car park. The Registrant explained that she was trying to charge her mobile phone and was driving the car slowly to charge her phone. A security guard saw her collide with other cars in the car park and called the police.

(4) On 18 June 2022, the Registrant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a road, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

(5) On 8 July 2022 the Registrant entered a plea of not guilty in the Magistrate’s Court, and on 30 January 2023 the Registrant was found guilty at Birmingham and Solihull Magistrates’ Court.

(6) On 8 February 2023 the Registrant submitted a self-referral form to the HCPC and selected a box to indicate that she had ‘Been charged with a criminal offence(s)’, and expanded:

“I have been charged with drink driving conviction and have lost my driving licence from 14 to 17 months with drink driving course given as an option. I have to go to court order probation meetings once every two weeks for 8 months to include 15 meetings.”
Decision of the Substantive Order panel as regards impairment

9. At the outset of the Substantive Hearing the Registrant admitted the factual particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation. She denied that her failure to inform the HCPC of the fact that she had been charged with the offence, amounted to misconduct or that her fitness to practise was impaired.

10. The Substantive Order panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct in not informing the HCPC that she had been charged with the offence, was sufficiently serious as to amount to misconduct.

11. The Substantive Order panel further determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of both her conviction and her misconduct. It found impairment established with regard to both the personal and the public component. Its reasons for coming to this conclusion were fully set out in its determination and include those set out below. For ease of reference, the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Order panel have been retained but are shown in brackets.

(26) With regard to the personal component, there were elements of what the Registrant told the Police and subsequently this Panel about the incident that has led the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s insight is not fully developed. For example, the Panel had no information about the Registrant’s alcohol use. Although it is stated by the Registrant’s referee that the Registrant has now cut down on alcohol consumption and is leading a healthier lifestyle there was no evidence of this before the Panel and it was not clear whether problem use of alcohol was a factor in the offending. The Registrant set out in her correspondence that she was angry at the time of the offending and had herself been the victim of a crime, but no further evidence was provided. The Registrant also stated that she had been incorrectly advised by her legal representatives to plead not guilty and it was because of this advice that she had lost money. There was no detailed reflection from the Registrant to reassure the Panel that she had addressed the issues that led to the offending to prevent any repetition.

(27) The Panel noted that the Registrant does accept that she did commit the offence and is remorseful for her actions.

(28) The Panel considered that there was an absence of acceptance of the true circumstances of the incident, and a lack of insight into the consequences of it. Further there is a lack of any meaningful insight into the impact of the conviction on the reputation of the profession. The Panel also considered that there was a lack of appreciation of the consequences that the delay in reporting the matter to the HCPC could have on effective regulation and protecting the public. In these circumstances the Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant had insight into her misconduct or conviction.

(29) The Panel therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence of insight and remediation and there was a risk of repetition. For that reason the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired upon the personal component.

(30) So far as the public component of impairment of fitness to practise is concerned, the Panel considered that a finding of impaired fitness to practise is necessary. The Panel considered that the conviction is a serious falling short of the standards required and in the view of the Panel fair-minded members of the public would be shocked if a finding of impairment were not made in circumstances where a Registrant was convicted of drink driving and had failed to inform the Regulator of the circumstances for a significant period.

Decision of the Substantive Order panel as regards sanction

12. Having considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the Substantive Order panel considered what sanction it should impose. It took account of the risk of repetition. It concluded that to take no action or to issue a caution order would not be appropriate. It further concluded that it could not formulate workable conditions which would adequately protect the public and did not amount to suspension.

13. The Substantive Order panel imposed a Suspension Order for 6 months. Its reasons for coming to these conclusions, were fully set out in its determination and include those set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the Substantive Order Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

(38)The Panel identified the following aggravating factors, the Registrant has not demonstrated any meaningful insight into her conduct, particularly in relation to the delay in reporting matters to the HCPC. There is no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has understood the seriousness of her misconduct nor appreciated the impact on the profession. There was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant had remediated her conduct by familiarising herself with the Standards or by providing a reflective account to the Panel to demonstrate that she has learned from the experience and had taken effective steps to prevent any repetition. There was no evidence before the Panel regarding the Registrant’s current use of alcohol or any evidence that she had appreciated the effects of alcohol on the offending. The responses given by the Registrant during these proceedings suggested that she had not developed personal accountability for the misconduct and conviction and sought to blame others such as her criminal lawyers, the legal and regulatory processes and the HCPC.

(39) The Panel identified the following mitigating factors, the Registrant made admissions in these proceedings and has engaged with the HCPC. The Registrant indicated in her correspondence with the HCPC that there were difficult personal circumstances on the night of the offence but the Panel had heard no detailed evidence from the Registrant and so it was unable to attach significant weight to these matters. The Panel also noted that the Registrant was at the start of her career.

(40) The Panel reminded itself that the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence which had the potential to cause serious harm. The Panel also took into account the findings it had made in relation to impairment and in particular the finding that the Registrant posed a risk of repeating her misconduct in relation to her responsibilities as a professional to keep the HCPC informed of relevant matters.

(41) The Panel first considered taking no action but concluded that, given the seriousness of the criminal offence committed, and the misconduct in the delay in informing the HCPC, this would be inappropriate and inadequate given the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances.

(42) The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99 - 102 of the Sanctions Policy as to when such an order might be appropriate. The Panel determined that the circumstances of the criminal offence and misconduct are such that a Caution Order is also not appropriate to meet the public interest concerns identified for the same reason as set out above.

(43) The Panel next considered the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order and had regard to paragraphs 105 - 117 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has had regard to the fact that there are no concerns with the Registrant’s practice or competency as an Occupational Therapist and this matter occurred outside of the workplace. However, the nature of the criminal offence and subsequent late disclosure makes a Conditions of Practice Order inappropriate as a sanction. A Conditions of Practice Order, which focuses on the need to remedy practice deficiencies, would not be appropriate or relevant to the facts of this case. In any event, such a sanction would be unworkable and impracticable given the Registrant’s current lack of full insight.

(44) The Panel then considered whether a period of suspension would be a sufficient and proportionate response. It had regard to paragraphs 118- 120 of the Sanctions Policy.

(45) The Panel bore in mind the findings it had already made and took into account the need to protect the public and public interest. There was evidence before the Panel that the Registrant was remorseful for her conviction and made early admissions to the factual particulars which suggested that there was some understanding that the conduct was wrong. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had complied with her probation requirements to address the offending, but it had no details of what this work was or any learning she had developed. The Panel noted that the Registrant was at the beginning of her career and had not had the benefit of advice or representation during these proceedings.

(46) The Panel considered that the Registrant was capable of insight given her remorse and apology but that this was not sufficiently developed to encompass reflection and remediation to mitigate the risk of repetition. The Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register. The Panel considered that there was evidence that the Registrant wished to remain registered as an Occupational Therapist and her engagement suggested to the Panel that there was a willingness to comply with the requirements. The Panel therefore concluded that a period of suspension would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain a proper degree of confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and to declare and maintain proper standards among fellow professionals. The Panel considered that striking the Registrant’s name off the HCPC Register of Occupational Therapists would be disproportionate in circumstances where the conduct was remediable through insight and reflection and the Registrant had demonstrated that she was able and willing to develop such insight.

(47) The Panel took into account the impact that an order of suspension would have on the Registrant and noted that although she was not currently working in this role it would prevent her from doing so whilst the order was in force. Nevertheless, it considered that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests.

(48) The Panel determined that a period of 6 months was the appropriate and proportionate length of the Suspension Order. This would be adequate to protect the public interest and maintain high standards of conduct and behaviour but would also allow the Registrant sufficient opportunity to develop her insight and undertake remediation to identify and address the issues that led to the conviction and misconduct.

Suggestions made by the Substantive Order panel as to what might assist a future reviewing panel.

14. In paragraph 49 of its determination, the Substantive Order Panel made suggestions as to what might assist a future reviewing panel. Those suggestions were in the following terms.

(49) This Panel does not seek to fetter the discretion of a future reviewing panel, but it considers that such a panel may be assisted by any information which evidences a developing level of insight. This might include learning from courses targeted towards professional ethics and compliance with the Standards. In addition, a future Panel may be assisted by a reflective piece which addresses the impact the Registrant’s misconduct and conviction may have had on public confidence in the profession. The Registrant could also provide any other relevant evidence which demonstrates the steps she had taken to address the misconduct and prevent any repetition.

The first review of the Substantive Order conducted on 27 May 2025

The Submissions made on behalf of the HCPC

15. Mr Anderson on behalf of the HCPC took the Panel through the determination of the Substantive Order Panel and the relevant history. He submitted that the Registrant was still impaired on both the personal and the public components. In respect of the outcome of this review hearing Mr Anderson invited the Panel to make a Striking Off Order. In brief summary, Mr Anderson’s submissions in support of the above included the following;

(a) The persuasive burden of establishing that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired, falls on the Registrant. This the Registrant has failed to do.

(b) In substance nothing has changed since the hearing in October 2024 which undermines the finding of impairment on both the public and the personal components. The Registrant has not engaged with this review hearing. She has provided no information as regards her present circumstances or what she has done to address the risk of repetition of her conduct or her excessive use of alcohol when driving a motor vehicle.

(c) There is no evidence of any development in the Registrant’s insight and no evidence of remediation.

(d) The Registrant has not complied with the recommendations made in paragraph 49 of the determination of the Substantive Order panel.

Submissions made by the Registrant

16. The Panel has not received any substantive submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

The decisions of the Panel made on 27 May 2025

17. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

18. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 [The Order] and which are set out in the email sent to the Registrant giving notice of this hearing.

19. The Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired: if so, whether the Suspension Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.

Decision of the Panel on Impairment

20. Having taken account of the submissions made by Mr Anderson, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, on both the personal and the public components. Its reasons are essentially the same as those given by the Substantive Order Panel. The Registrant has not complied with the suggestions made in paragraph 49 of the determination of the Substantive Order Panel. She has not engaged with this hearing. She has not provided any material which addresses the matters found proved by the Substantive Order Panel. She has not discharged the burden of proof which rests on her of establishing that her fitness to practise is no longer engaged. The Panel has concluded that the risk of repetition remains.

21. The Panel also concludes that public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator, would be gravely undermined if the Panel was to determine that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not now impaired and if the Registrant is permitted to return to unrestricted practice. Consequently, for the same reasons that are set out in the determination of the Substantive Order Panel, the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public components.

Decision of the Panel on Sanction

22. In considering the appropriate order the Panel has had regard to the HCPTS’ ’Sanctions Policy updated in March 2019, to the submissions of Mr Anderson, to the determination of the Substantive Order Panel and to the advice of the Legal Assessor.

23. The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality. The Panel is aware that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive and that it must consider the risk of repetition and public confidence in the profession and its regulator.

24. The Panel has considered the sanctions available in ascending order of restriction. The Panel considered that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would be wholly inappropriate.

25. The Panel gave consideration to the possibility of formulating a Conditions of Practice Order. However, it concluded that it could not formulate appropriate conditions which would in any way protect the public or address the public interest. Moreover, as the Panel has no information as regards the Registrant’s present circumstances it concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order is not practicable. It agreed with the determination of the Substantive Order Panel as set out in paragraph 43 of its determination.

26. The Panel next considered a continuation of the Suspension Order. The Panel determined that a continuation of the Suspension Order is not appropriate and that the appropriate Order for the Panel to make is a Striking Off Order. Its reasons included the following;

a) The Registrant has not engaged with this review hearing.

b) The Registrant has not provided any of the material suggested by the Substantive Order Panel.

c) There is no evidence that the Registrant has developed any relevant insight or taken any steps to reduce any of the risks that have been identified.

d) The Registrant’s engagement with the hearing in October 2024 was very limited.

e) The Registrant was warned by the emails from the HCPC dated 16 April 2025 and 6 May 2025 that this review hearing could lead to her being struck off the Register.

f) In all the circumstances the Panel concluded that the prospects of the Registrant engaging with a further review hearing were small. The Panel could see no merit in retaining this case in the review cycle.

27. The Panel has decided that in all the circumstances the appropriate and proportionate order for it to make, both to protect the public and to address the public interest, is to strike the Registrant’s name for the Register.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Miss Christel Rogers from the Register.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Christel Rogers