Katherine Miller

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a Service bundle, from which it observed that Notice of the hearing (“the Notice”) was sent by email dated 14 February 2025. The Notice set out the date, time and place (virtual) for the hearing. The Panel noted Rules 3 and 6 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”) and the obligation to serve Notice to the Registrant’s registered address. The Panel was provided with a certificate of registration which confirmed the Registrant’s registered status and the correct registered address.

2. The Panel noted that the formal requirements of service, pursuant to the Rules and as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note Service of Documents are to demonstrate sending to the registered address. The Panel was satisfied that formal service had been effected with the required period of notice of at least 28 days.

3. The Panel observed that, in addition, a Notice had been sent to a further email address for the Registrant on 22 April 2025 and that the date of the hearing had been acknowledged by legal representatives on the Registrant’s behalf.

Proceeding in Absence

4. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Mr Tobias made an application to the Panel to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He referred the Panel to the HCPC’s written Skeleton Argument. Pursuant to Rule 11, it was submitted that sufficient notice of the proceedings had been given, and all reasonable steps had been taken to serve Notice of the hearing.

5. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note Proceeding in Absence of the Registrant and the cases of R v Jones [2002] UK HL 5, GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and Jatta v NMC [2009] EWCA Civ 824. He advised the Panel to apply the criteria taken from those cases and set out in the Practice Note. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it had a discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, if satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to serve Notice of the hearing, pursuant to Rule 11. The discretion had to be exercised carefully and with caution.

6. The Panel had been provided with a response from those representing the Registrant in an email dated 24 April 2025. The email set out that neither the Registrant nor a representative would attend the hearing, and a decision was awaited. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the hearing, had been able to receive appropriate advice and had decided not to attend. In the circumstances of the particular application, the Panel was of the view that no prejudice arose to the Registrant, if the Panel went ahead in her absence.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily waived her right to attend, and it was in the interests of expeditious disposal of the matter to proceed to hear the HCPC’s application.

Private Hearing

8. Mr Tobias applied to the Panel to sit partly in private, in the event that the hearing referred to any matters going to the health of the Registrant. He referred to the HCPTS Practice Note Conducting Hearings in Private. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that Rule 10(1)(a) provides that hearings are generally conducted in public, in pursuit of the principles of open justice. However, the same Rule 10(1)(a) also provides exceptions, where the interests of justice, or protection of the private lives of certain persons (including the Registrant) so requires.

9. The Panel decided that the appropriate balance of interests was struck by conducting the hearing in public and moving into private session whenever there was any reference to the Registrant’s private health matters. A private and public version of the Panel’s determination will be prepared in due course.

Background

10. The Registrant is a Speech and Language Therapist (“SLT”) registered with the HCPC. At the time of the concerns, the Registrant was employed by Swansea Bay University Health Board (“the Board”) as a Band 7 SLT.

11. Concerns regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practise were referred to the HCPC on 27 April 2021. It was alleged that a number of concerns had come to light in respect of the Registrant’s conduct, competence and health. In the referral, it was alleged that, following an audit conducted in October 2020 of the Registrant’s work for the period June 2019 to August 2020, a number of concerns had been identified.

12. It was said that, in response to the local investigation undertaken by the Board, the Registrant had referred to being subject to persistent bullying and harassment from colleagues, and alleged that she had received very little management support. It was said that the Registrant had made a grievance over this.

13. [Redacted].

14. [Redacted].

15. On 27 February 2023, a panel of the HCPC’s Investigating Committee considered the case and referred an Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee, as follows:

That, being a registered Speech and Language Therapist (SL02461):

1. Between June 2019 and August 2020, you did not complete tasks in a timely manner in that:

a. You delayed completing case notes and/or discharge reports for the Service Users set out in Schedule A.

b. You delayed allocating cases from the duty desk to the waiting list for Service Users A and B.

2. Between June 2019 and August 2020, you did not maintain complete records for the Service Users set out in Schedule B in that:

a. You did not record the full details of your assessments and/or clinical reasoning and/or decision-making.

b. Between September 2019 and May 2020, you did not record the clinical reasoning for IDDSI level recommendations.

3. Between November 2019 and May 2020, you retrospectively amended details of appointments without time stamping the edits for the Service Users L, M and J.

4. The matters set out in particulars 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3 above constitutes lack of competence.

5. By reason of your lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

16. An application for Consensual Disposal of the Allegation dated 19 May 2024 was completed by the Registrant. The Registrant requested Voluntary Removal. She admitted the substance of the allegations as set out in the Notice of Allegation dated 06 March 2023. The Registrant admitted that her fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of lack of competence. The Registrant confirmed that she had read the relevant HCPTS Practice Note Disposal of Cases by Consent.

17. The Registrant provided the HCPC with documentation supporting the fact that she had retired from her position with the Board.

18. The Panel was provided by the HCPC, for the purposes of the application, with a hearing bundle of 755 pages. This included the bundle of documents which had been put before the Investigating Committee, together with documents relating to the Voluntary Removal Application (“VRA”). The HCPC also provided the Panel with its written Skeleton Argument in support of the application to Withdraw the Allegation. The hearing bundle also included the HCPTS Practice Note Disposal of Cases by Consent and a draft Notice of Withdrawal.

19. Mr Tobias referred the Panel to the Skeleton Argument, which he expanded upon in the hearing. He submitted that the application set out clear and detailed justifications as to why consensual disposal was suitable. He submitted that the appropriate documentation had been prepared and completed. Mr Tobias submitted that consensual disposal of the case would adequately protect the public and pointed to the Registrant’s admissions of the allegations and impairment. He said that the Registrant was no longer in practice, did not intend to resume practice and was aware that the disposal was equivalent to a ‘strike off’.

20. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that, notwithstanding the Agreement between the parties, as provided in the bundle, the decision whether the case could be disposed of by consent was a matter for the Panel. He referred the Panel to the Practice Note.

21. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that, in particular, it should satisfy itself that the HCPC:

a. has provided a clear, appropriately detailed and objectively justified explanation within its supporting skeleton argument of why the matter is suitable for disposal by consent on the terms set out in the draft Consent Order; and

b. has made clear to the registrant concerned that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to a Consent Order being approved.

22. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel could not agree to withdrawal of a case without due inquiry. He referred the Panel to CHRE v Ruscillo [2004] EWCA 1356 and PSA v NMC & X [2018] EWHC 70, and the duty of the panel to be proactive in ensuring the public interest was protected. The Panel must be satisfied that it is sufficiently informed of the HCPC’s rationale, and that withdrawal is in the interests of justice and the public interest.

Decision on the Application

23. The Panel considered the HCPC’s application with care and considered the Skeleton Argument, hearing bundle and VRA documents. The Panel read the Registrant’s statement in support of her application for disposal by consent and took this into account. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

24. The Panel was satisfied that there was a formal agreement in place for the HCPC to seek withdrawal and in response for the Registrant to apply for voluntary removal from the Register.

25. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is aware that approval of the consent order was not automatic. It noted that the Registrant has admitted the substance of the allegations, that her fitness to practise is currently impaired and she has had the opportunity to consider the relevant Practice Note.

26. The Panel took into account that there was reliable evidence that the Registrant had retired from her position with the Board. It appears that she had commenced drawing her NHS pension. The Registrant had been in practice for around 34 years. The allegations related to matters which had occurred some five to six years ago. The Registrant had expressed an intention to not return to practise, following her retirement.

27. The Panel took into account that, if allowing the Withdrawal application, there would be no determination of the facts, lack of competence and impairment. However, the Panel balanced this with the fact that the Registrant had made admissions in writing and the effect of the Agreement between the HCPC and the Registrant (“the Agreement”) was that the Registrant would apply for Voluntary Removal from the Register.

28. The Panel took into account that, in the event that the Registrant applied to be restored to the Register, the Agreement provided that the HCPC would be entitled to treat the application as if made by a person who had been removed by means of a ‘striking off’ order (under Article 29(5(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001).

29. The Panel was therefore satisfied that, if it consented to the disposal and granted the HCPC’s application for Withdrawal, the public would be protected: (i) by the Registrant’s application for Voluntary Removal; and (ii) in the event of any application for restoration.

30. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC’s Skeleton Argument sufficiently addressed the appropriateness of concluding the allegations without a full hearing, including the extent to which the ‘public’ component elements of impairment are engaged in the case.

31. The Panel noted the HCPC’s submission that resolving the matter by consent through removal of the Registrant’s name from the register is the most effective way of ensuring that the appropriate level of public protection is secured. It was also submitted that such a course will not be detrimental to the wider public interest in the circumstances that full admissions had been made to the Allegation.

32. The Panel accepted the HCPC’s submission and considered that the public would be adequately protected by granting the application. It considered that members of the public would not be concerned by the withdrawal of the Allegation in the circumstances. Therefore, public confidence in the profession would not be undermined and professional standards would be declared and upheld.

33. The Panel decided to grant the HCPC’s application and allow it to withdraw the Allegation.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mrs Katherine Miller from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Katherine Miller