Billy Law
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Dietitian (DT24773):
1. On or around 12 January 2018 you advised Service User J to change their medication and/or instructed their GP, in writing, to change Service User J’s medication, when you had:
a. no prescription training;
b. not discussed with or sought authorisation to do so from a senior nurse or consultant.
2. On or around 13 February 2018, in respect of Service User H, you requested a change of prescription from their GP, when you had:
a. no prescription training;
b. not discussed with or sought authorisation to do so from a senior nurse or consultant.
3. On or around 18 January 2019 you recommended an increase to Service User G’s prescribed medication when you had:
a. no prescription training
b. not discussed with or sought authorisation to do so from a senior nurse or consultant.
4. On or around 31 May 2019 you advised Service User I to change their medication and/or on 3 June 2019 instructed their GP, in writing, to change Service User I’s medication, when you had :
a. no prescription training;
b. not discussed with or sought authorisation to do so from a senior nurse or consultant.
5. On or around 12 July 2019 you advised and/or instructed a GP, in writing, to prescribe an additional medication to Service User B when you had:
a. no prescription training
b. not discussed with or sought authorisation to do so from a senior nurse or consultant.
6. On or around 25 July 2019, you provided dosage instructions to Service User A for their new medication which was:
a. not clinically justified.
b. placed Service User A at a risk of harm.
7. On or around 26 July 2019 you advised and/or instructed a GP, in writing, to change Service User A’s medication, specifically insulin for diabetes, when you had:
a. no prescription training;
b. not discussed with or sought authorisation to do so from a senior nurse or consultant.
8. On or around 17 January 2020, in respect of Service User C, you provided advice on medication reduction/s when you had:
a. no prescription training
b. not discussed with our sought authorisation from a consultant or senior nurse
c. been told not to remove medications or ask GP’s to prescribe new medications
d. been told to liaise with a senior nurse or consultant about ideas for changing medication or doses
9. On or around 17 January 2020, you commenced Service User C on a reduced calorie diet when:
a. it was not clinically appropriate
b. you had not undertaken and/or recorded screening for eating disorders
c. you had not arranged medical screening by a physician
d. you had not discussed with or sought authorisation from a senior nurse or consultant
10. On or around 13 January 2021 you commenced Service User D on a Very Low Calorie Diet (VLCD) and
a. You did not:
i. undertake and/or record screening for eating disorders
ii. arrange medical screening by a physician
iii. discuss with or seek authorisation from a senior nurse or consultant
iv. update their GP
b. provided advice on medication reduction/s when you had:
i. no prescription training
ii. not discussed with or sought authorisation from a consultant or senior nurse
iii. been told not to remove medications or ask GP’s to prescribe new medications
iv. been told to liaise with a senior nurse or consultant about ideas for changing medication or doses
11. On or around 14 January 2021, you requested a GP to change Service User F’s medication, specifically rapid insulin, when you had:
a. no prescription training
b. had not discussed with or sought or authorisation from a senior nurse or consultant
c. been told not to remove medications or ask GP’s to prescribe new medications
d. been told to liaise with a senior nurse or consultant about ideas for changing medication or doses
12. On or around 2 February 2021 you
a. commenced Service User E on a Very Low Calorie Diet (VLCD) when:
i. when it was not clinically appropriate
ii. you had not undertaken and/or recorded screening for eating disorders
iii. you had not arranged medical screening by a physician
iv. you had not discussed or sought authorisation from a senior nurse or consultant
b. provided advice on medication reduction/s when you had:
i. no prescription training;
ii. not discussed with or sought authorisation from consultant or senior nurse
iii. been told not to remove medications or ask GP’s to prescribe new medications
iv. been told to liaise with a senior nurse or consultant about ideas for changing medication or doses
13. In respect of particulars 1-12, you worked beyond your scope of practice.
14. The matters set out in particulars 1-13 above amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.
15. By reason of misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters:
Privacy
1. Ms Sampson explained to the Panel that there may be occasions during the hearing where matters relating to the Registrant’s health and private personal life had to be raised, to provide context, and promote a fair hearing for the Registrant. On behalf of the HCPC, she invited the Panel to conduct those parts of the hearing in private to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life.
2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice which had drawn its attention to Rule 10 of the Conduct and Competence Procedure Rules 2003 (the Rules). The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note Conducting Hearings in Private. The Panel also carefully considered the public interest grounds in the case being heard in public.
3. The Panel was satisfied that the matters relating to the Registrant’s health and private life should be heard in private to maintain the Registrant’s right to a private life. Ms Sampson and the Registrant were both in agreement on this. It was fair to the Registrant to allow the Registrant’s private and personal matters to be considered in private to facilitate a full hearing with necessary context.
4. The Panel therefore decided that the matters concerning the Registrant’s private life be conducted in private, and the rest of the hearing could remain in public.
Background:
5. The Registrant is a registered Dietitian. He had been employed as a Band 6 Community Diabetes Dietitian at the Diabetes Care for You Service (‘The Service’) between January 2017 and October 2021. The Registrant was not qualified or employed to act as a medicines prescriber. Such activities lay outside of the scope of his practice and his employment contract with the Service.
6. The Service raised concerns about the Registrant after a Service User called the Service to clarify changes to his insulin prescription made by the Registrant. This call prompted the Service to investigate and to conduct a review of the Registrant’s work. The review revealed concerns that the Registrant had:
• provided incorrect diet advice to service users;
• improperly suggested VLCDs;
• requested changes to medication beyond the scope of his professional practice; and that
• this had all continued despite the Registrant being advised not to do this, in person, and in writing, following a meeting with his clinical supervisor on 29 August 2019.
7. The Service User group seen by the Registrant were vulnerable. They included persons who had type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. Changes in the provision of insulin medications and dietary changes, including very sudden and substantial reductions in calorie intake daily, could have serious adverse impacts for the Service Users.
8. The interactions of insulin dose, delivery, and frequency, and a daily deficit in calories all had the potential to cause the service users to experience unanticipated and unpredictable hyperglycaemia or hypoglycaemia episodes.
9. In circumstances where the service users were operating machinery or were driving, or were at risk of falls, the risks to the service users, and to other members of the public were high.
10. For these reasons, changes to a Service User’s insulin medication, or diet regime had to be discussed with team members with expertise in the area including nurse prescribers and consultant physicians.
Substantive Hearing on 04 - 10 December 2024
11. The matter eventually came to hearing before the Substantive Hearing Panel on 04 - 10 December 2024. The Registrant did not attend, service was found proved and the Panel acceded to the HCPC application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The HCPC called various witnesses including the Professional Lead of Diabetes for the Service, the Diabetes Nurse Consultant, and a HCPC registered Dietitian.
12. The Panel found all particulars proved. The Panel found misconduct in respect of Particulars 1 to 13 except for Particular 9. Further, it found that the Registrant was impaired in relation to the personal and public components.
13. In relation to Sanction, no mitigating factors were identified and various aggravating factors were found. The Panel found a breach of service user trust. It noted the repetition of concerns and a pattern of unacceptable behaviour after 3 October 2019, extending over two years and remaining unaddressed by the Registrant at this final hearing. There was no evidence of insight, remorse, or apology. The Panel also found a lack of meaningful, targeted, and relevant remediation. It concluded that there remained a risk of serious service user harm, although it recognised that there was no evidence of actual harm in this case.
14. In relation to Sanction, the Substantive Hearing Panel stated:
“221. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy which provides:
“121 A Suspension Order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order, but which do not require the Registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance, and ethics;
• the Registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated;
• there is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings”.
222. Having taken account of those factors, the Panel considered that a Suspension Order was the appropriate order in this case. In coming to this view, the Panel recognised one factor relevant in the foregoing list is the gateway factor of serious breach of standards of conduct. The Panel had no evidence to suggest that the other factors set out above were engaged. The Panel however recognised that, taking the totality of the information available to it, together, there was scope for a realistic view that a Suspension Order could provide the Registrant with the platform and the time to productively address the Panel’s determination and the concerns set out in it.
223. The Panel was influenced by what was said in relation to the Registrant’s clinical abilities by AO and Dr Blades. The Panel recognised that service users and the public can always be protected from the failings of Dietitians by removing them completely from the Register. The Panel recognised however that this is a sanction of last resort where the Registrant’s conduct was wholly incompatible with continued registration. In this case, there was scope for the view that the Registrant was acting in the best interests of the service users, although his professional arrogance may have blinded him to the clear risks to service users of his decisions which were made outside the scope of his practice and without appropriate discussions with the MDT.
224. The Panel recalled that the High Court set out in the case of Giele v General Medical Council [2005] EWHC 2143 (Admin) that where possible, protective sanctions can, in appropriate cases, fully protect the public by acting in a way that can restore an otherwise safe and effective practitioner to serve the needs of the public. The Registrant was highly regarded professionally despite his failings and the appearance of professional arrogance. The Panel considered that a period of suspension could provide him with the opportunity to engage with the Panel’s findings and to begin the process of reflection and remediation necessary to allow him to return to practise.
225. One of the factors in support of a Suspension Order is the Registrant’s insight. In this case, the Registrant has demonstrated no insight of any meaningful kind, nor has he provided an apology or any expression of remorse. The Panel had already determined that the Registrant’s conduct may be repeated with potential risks for service users and for the reputation of the Dietitian profession. However, given the potential for the Registrant to reverse that lack of engagement and insight during a period of suspension with the consequent potential benefits for the public if successful, the Panel came to the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would not be undermined if a Suspension Order was imposed in this case.
226. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Suspension Order for 12 months.
…
234. The Panel considered that a Panel which later reviewed the Registrant’s suspension would be assisted by;
• The Registrant’s attendance and participation in the review
• Information regarding the Registrant’s current professional or voluntary employment relevant to the profession of Dietitian
• Being provided by the Registrant with a reflective piece of writing which engaged closely with the Panel’s findings in this hearing, and
• Evidence of targeted professional education courses dealing with
a. The importance of acting always within the scope of practice
b. Timely and relevant discussions with professional colleagues in the interests of service users
c. Address the insight gained by the Registrant in regard to the risks for the public and for service users of his failings”
Submissions:
15. The Registrant provided a reflective statement of 3-pages to the HCPC on 5 November 2025. The Registrant submitted that he was shocked by the evidence from the initial hearing and needed time to reflect, apologising for not attending that hearing and for the mistakes that put patients at risk. He explained that he has not worked as a Dietitian since leaving East Sussex NHS Trust and is currently employed as a remote health coach for the National Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP), where he seeks support appropriately and refers clinical queries to relevant professionals. In responding to the allegations, he attributed his behaviour to a combination of personal and emotional pressures. He accepted that he had sought external validation, had not prioritised professional standards, and should have sought more support. He stated that he has since revisited key professional standards and guidance, understands the need to work within his competence, and has maintained non-practising BDA membership.
16. In his oral evidence, the Registrant expanded on the themes in his reflective statement, explaining in greater depth how certain matters had affected his judgment, concentration, and behaviour at the relevant time. He accepted the allegations in full and reiterated his unreserved apology, acknowledging that he had acted outside his scope of practice and created risks for service users. He confirmed that he should have referred matters to senior colleagues or appropriate specialists rather than making any suggestions himself. He accepted that his record keeping had fallen below standard and stated that he now understands the importance of seeking timely support, consulting colleagues, and adhering strictly to professional boundaries.
17. While he confirmed he had not yet completed targeted professional courses, he explained that although he had looked for relevant professional courses, he had been unable to find any and acknowledged that he should have raised this with the HCPC or the BDA. He noted that the courses he has undertaken relate to his current role, such as health and safety and conflict resolution, and that he remains willing to undertake any further training required. He also outlined his continued work as a remote health coach within defined limits, his intention to return to Dietetic practice gradually with appropriate supervision, stating that he would need to ease himself back into practice, increase his clinical knowledge, and would welcome supervision and additional support. He expressed willingness to work under conditions if required and invited the Panel to permit his return to practice, with or without conditions. He stated that, if faced with similar circumstances in the future, he would slow down his reactions, recognise early signs of stress, and reach out to colleagues for timely support.
18. Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant had not fully addressed all the serious concerns identified at the substantive hearing, noting that the matters involved vulnerable service users. She acknowledged his engagement, attendance, and the progress reflected in his statement and oral evidence but submitted that his insight remained limited. In her view, he focused primarily on his personal circumstances and found it difficult to articulate the impact of his actions on service users or how he would manage similar situations differently in future. She also submitted that he had produced no evidence of targeted professional education or structured remediation and that, given the burden on him to demonstrate steps taken, a risk of repetition remained. On this basis, she submitted that he remained impaired on both the personal and public components.
19. In respect of sanctions, Ms Sampson submitted that taking no action would be insufficient to protect the public, and that extending the current suspension would not support the Registrant’s rehabilitation. She invited the Panel to replace the suspension with conditions, which would enable him to return to work safely while completing the necessary remediation. She proposed conditions including weekly managerial supervision and completion of the targeted professional development recommended by the previous panel. She submitted conditions for 6–12 months would be proportionate, offer adequate public protection, and support the Registrant’s safe return to practice.
20. The Registrant had no further submissions.
Decision:
21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes; ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. The Panel also had regard to the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, as well as the Sanctions Policy.
22. The Panel carried out a comprehensive reconsideration of the Conditions of Practice Order considering the current circumstances. The Panel bore in mind that it must first decide if a finding of current impairment is necessary to protect the public from any risk of harm (assessing the extent of that current or future risk), maintain public confidence in the profession, or to declare and uphold the proper standards of conduct or behaviour. This is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgment and is essentially a risk assessment considering all the information before the Panel today.
23. The Legal Assessor advised that, in practical terms, there was a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired and that the concerns that led to the original finding of impairment have now been overcome. The Panel was referred to the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) and the principle that it is for a registrant to fully acknowledge why past performance was deficient and demonstrate that they have, “through insight, application, education, supervision and other achievement … sufficiently addressed the past impairments.”
24. It is only if the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired that the Panel should go on to consider sanction by applying the guidance as set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel must have regard to the principle of proportionality, which requires that the Registrant’s interests be balanced against the interests of the public.
25. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired and it exercised its own professional judgement in this regard. In undertaking this review, the Panel considered all of the documentation before it, including the determination from the previous hearings where the panel identified that there was an ongoing risk to the public because of the Registrant’s lack of insight.
26. The Panel considered all the evidence before it, together with the submissions and the relevant HCPTS Practice Notes. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct involved a sustained pattern of working outside scope of practice, inadequate record keeping, and failures that placed vulnerable service users at risk. In assessing current impairment, the Panel considered both the personal and public components.
27. The Panel found that the Registrant’s insight remained limited and not yet sufficiently developed. While he had addressed aspects of his personal circumstances through therapy and could describe how these events affected him, he provided very little reflection on the potential harm to service users, the impact on colleagues, or the wider consequences for public trust in the profession. His written submissions were largely self-focused, and his oral evidence only addressed these issues when prompted with specific questions. The Panel noted that he had been given several opportunities to reflect on these issues but had not done so meaningfully.
28. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had expressed remorse and apologised, but it was not persuaded that this demonstrated a fully formed or reliable insight. He had not demonstrated the depth of understanding regarding risk, duty of care, or professional accountability required of a safe autonomous practitioner. These were serious concerns involving vulnerable service users.
29. The Panel also noted the absence of any evidence of relevant CPD. The Registrant has not practised as a Dietitian for over four years and has undertaken only generic mandatory training associated with his current non-dietetic role. He has not taken steps to maintain or update his Dietetic knowledge and had not undertaken any of the targeted CPD the previous panel identified. He did not demonstrate that he had sought advice from professional bodies, colleagues, or the HCPC about suitable courses. His evidence on remediation therefore fell considerably short.
30. The Panel also considered the limited evidence regarding his current employment. No testimonials, references, or evidence of working effectively within scope or within professional frameworks were provided, despite the previous Panel clearly indicating that such evidence would be helpful. This absence raised concerns about personal accountability and reduced the Panel’s confidence that the Registrant currently possesses the safeguards necessary to prevent repetition.
31. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the Registrant has not yet developed sufficient insight, has not remedied the concerns, and presents a genuine risk of repetition. The Panel therefore found that his fitness to practise remains impaired on the personal component.
32. The Panel also found the public component of impairment to be engaged. Members of the public would expect a Dietitian to maintain up-to-date professional knowledge, practise safely within scope, and demonstrate clear understanding of the risks to service users. The Registrant had not demonstrated awareness of how his previous conduct undermined confidence in the profession. His limited insight and lack of structured remediation mean that public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be undermined if he were permitted to return to unrestricted practice.
33. Having found current impairment, the Panel went on to consider sanction. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgment and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public. Further, that any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order must be the least restrictive order that would protect the public interest, including public protection. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and considered sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.
34. The Panel first considered taking no further action. Given the ongoing risks identified and the absence of sufficient remediation, this would not provide any protection to the public and would be inappropriate.
35. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. However, the Panel concluded that workable or effective conditions could not be formulated at this stage. The level of supervision and oversight required to mitigate risk would, in effect, require constant monitoring. The Registrant’s insight remains only partial, he has undertaken no dietetic CPD for four years, he has no evidence of current competence, and he produced no references or testimonials demonstrating adherence to professional expectations. His proposals for practice were vague, reactive, and largely suggested by others during questioning. The Panel determined that conditions could not adequately protect the public at this time.
36. The Panel then considered a Suspension Order. The Panel noted the Registrant’s attendance, his engagement at this review, and that he has taken steps to address some personal issues. The Panel considered that a further period of suspension would provide him with a further opportunity to undertake the structured remediation, targeted CPD, and reflective work required to demonstrate safe and competent future practice. A longer period would be disproportionate given some developing insight, but a short, focused period was necessary to allow meaningful progress before the next review.
37. The Panel therefore determined that a 3-month Suspension Order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction. This period is sufficient to allow the Registrant to take active steps to remediate the concerns and to gather appropriate evidence without removing him from the profession for longer than necessary.
38. The Panel considered that a review panel may be assisted by the following:
• The Registrant’s attendance and participation in the review;
• A reflective piece (for example using Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle) addressing:
o the impact on service users, colleagues, and public confidence.
o evidence of how the Registrant will manage future personal stressors to avoid repetition;
• Evidence of up-to-date Dietetic CPD and relevant professional development;
• Targeted CPD in working within scope, multidisciplinary working, and professional accountability. Should the Registrant find verifiable CPD on the matter of scope practice difficult to achieve, then a future panel may instead be assisted by a reflective written piece on what the Registrant understands on this matter having read relevant documentation; and
• Testimonials or references from his current employer addressing his ability to work within frameworks, boundaries, and policies;
Order
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Registration of Mr Billy Law for a further 3 months from the date of the expiry of the current Order.
Notes
The Order imposed today will apply from 7 January 2026. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 7 April 2026.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Billy Law
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20/11/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Suspended |
| 04/12/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |