Paul George

Preliminary matters

Notice:

1. The Panel was informed by the Hearings Officer, and had documentary evidence before it, that the Notice of Hearing (hereafter ‘the Notice’) was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 01 July 2025.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that the Notice had been properly served in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Investigating Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’).

3. In forming its view that service had been effected, the Panel noted that the Legal Assessor had drawn its attention to the Notice incorrectly outlining that the Panel was to be convened as the Conduct and Competence Committee, when it is convened as the Investigating Committee. The Panel considered that this did not render the Notice defective. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the date, time and venue of the hearing (remote) had been correctly outlined within the Notice and the Panel considered that the administrative error in respect of which Committee the hearing was convened under did not prejudice the Registrant in any way, nor prevent him from attending and/or engaging in the hearing.

Proceeding in absence:

4. Mr Maughan, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In doing so, he submitted the following:

i. the Registrant was served with the Notice on 01 July 2025, by email, and the Notice advised the Registrant of the date, time and venue of today’s hearing. Therefore, all reasonable steps have been taken by the HCPC to serve the Notice on the Registrant;

ii. the Panel should balance fairness to both parties when considering whether to proceed with today’s hearing;

iii. the Registrant had previously responded to the HCPC correspondence, and therefore it can be inferred that he was aware of the hearing and had not attended it. Therefore, the Registrant could be considered to have voluntarily absented himself;

iv. the Registrant was also sent the hearing room link by the HCPTS, and he had not engaged or responded to this;

v. the Registrant has also not sought an adjournment of today’s hearing and there was nothing before the Panel to suggest that an adjournment would secure his future attendance at a hearing; and

vi. the public interest to proceed with the hearing outweighs any prejudice to the Registrant in proceeding, especially when balanced against the attendance of an HCPC witness who had been warned to give evidence to the Panel today.

Panel decision

5. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

6. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address, on 01 July 2025 and that the Registrant had been notified of the venue (remote hearing) and time of today’s hearing within the Notice. Further, the Panel was also satisfied that the HCPC had informed the Registrant of the nature of today’s hearing and that the HCPC had also outlined to the Registrant, in its skeleton argument, and other documentation, the nature and purpose of the hearing.

7. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:

i. the Panel noted that the Registrant had corresponded with the HCPC on a number of occasions previously and so it was clear to the Panel that the Registrant was aware of who to contact should he have required an adjournment of today’s proceedings and no such application had been made. Further, the Panel also noted that it had no indication or information before it that the Registrant would be willing to attend on an alternative date. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings and re-listing this hearing would serve no useful purpose; and

ii. whilst the Panel recognised that there may be the potential for disadvantage to the Registrant in not appearing and being able to make oral submissions to it, the Panel balanced this with the fact that the Registrant had been afforded with an opportunity to attend the hearing and/or to provide written submissions for the Panel’s consideration and the Registrant had done neither;

iii. further, the Panel was also cognisant of the fact that the HCPC had a witness warned to give oral evidence to it. The Panel also considered that there is a public interest in dealing with matters expeditiously and it also considered fairness to the HCPC. Having regard to all of these matters, the Panel determined that the need to deal with matters expeditiously outweighed any potential disadvantage which may be caused to the Registrant if the Panel proceeded in his absence.

8. Consequently, having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Hearsay application:

9. Mr Maughan made an application to rely upon hearsay evidence and specifically, the information contained within the HCPC final hearing bundle at pages 13 to 63.

10. In support of his application Mr Maughan submitted the following:

i. the Registrant had been informed of the HCPC’s intention to apply to rely upon hearsay evidence contained within the HCPC bundle and had made no comment on it;

ii. the Panel ought to consider the matter carefully;

iii. the evidence to be adduced is not the sole or decisive evidence, rather it supported repeated concerns in respect of the Registrant’s command of the English language;

iv. of particular relevance, contained within the hearsay material, is the end of probation assessment in respect of the Registrant’s communication whilst employed at the Kent Institute of Medicine and Surgery (‘KIMS’);

v. the evidence is relevant to the issue of whether the Registrant’s submission to the HCPC that English was his first language, was not truthful;

vi. the evidence is also relevant to whether it would have been clear, in the mind of the Registrant, when he applied to join the HCPC Register on 24 November 2022, that English was not his first language;

vii. the HCPC case is that it is supportive of a lack of proficiency of English;

viii. it is relevant to the subject of the Allegation in this case;

ix. in the event that the Registrant had answered truthfully, that English was not his first language, then the Registrant would have known that his communication skills and knowledge would have been subject to further scrutiny by the HCPC;

x. the HCPC are not calling any of the witnesses and in respect of this, the referral documentation comes from multiple independent sources, which includes screenshots, and demonstrates the Registrant’s level of communication, but is not the sole and decisive evidence relied upon by the HCPC;

xi. fairness to the Registrant can be met. The Registrant has had the opportunity to oppose the application and he has not done so, nor has he made submissions on the point;

xii. should the Panel determine to admit the evidence, it can then consider what weight, if any, to place upon that evidence; and

xiii. having regard to the aforementioned, the evidence should be admitted.

Panel decision:

11. The Panel took Mr Maughan’s submissions and the documentation before it into account. It accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and it applied the legal principles to its decision making. In considering whether it was fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the Panel accepted that the weight to be given to the evidence was for it to consider at a later stage.

12. The Panel noted that the hearsay evidence presented to it comprised of evidence from the Registrant’s former employer (KIMS) and its referral to the HCPC. In particular, the Panel noted its concerns relating to the Registrant’s command of the English language and his communication. Having considered the documentation placed before it, the Panel determined that the hearsay evidence was not the sole and decisive evidence in respect of the Allegation before it. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before it, the Panel also concluded that there was no evidence before it to suggest that the hearsay evidence had been fabricated and in forming this view, the Panel noted it derived from multiple independent and reliable sources, and which also seemingly corroborated one another’s accounts.

13. The Panel also determined, having regard to the Legal Assessor’s advice and the considerations outlined in Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565, that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to place the Registrant on notice that the hearsay application was going to be made and the Registrant had not raised any objection to it.

14. Consequently, having regard to all of the aforementioned, and to its overriding objective of public protection and fairness, the Panel determined to admit the hearsay evidence into proceedings.

Background

15. The Registrant is admitted to the HCPC register as an Operating Department Practitioner (‘ODP’), in November 2022.

16. By way of background to the Registrant’s HCPC registration; upon applying to the HCPC, the Registrant declared, in his application form to the HCPC, that English was his first language, which in turn meant that he was exempt from having to provide any certification confirming the same, to the HCPC. To be on the HCPC Register, there is an expectation that an individual attains a score of 7.0 in English proficiency with no element below a score of 6.5. On 26 August 2023, such a certificate was submitted by the Registrant to the HCPC, and it indicated that his score was below that required and that he had also declared his ‘first’ language as Malayalam.

17. The HCPC case concerns the English language requirements in respect of entry onto the HCPC register. Specifically, the HCPC alleges that the Registrant’s entry onto the Register in November 2022 was fraudulently procured / incorrect on the basis that the Registrant falsely / incorrectly declared their first language to be English, when submitting their international application form, when in fact the Registrant’s first language was Malaylam, as per their International English language proficiency test (‘IELTS’) certificate.

18. The Registrant was employed, as an ODP, by KIMS, between 27 November 2023 and 21 February 2024.

19. On 21 February 2024, the HCPC received a referral from KIMS reporting concerns regarding the Registrant’s underperformance. In particular, the referral outlined that the Registrant had failed his probationary period with KIMS and that he had failed to meet seven of the eight expected standards. As a consequence, on 21 February 2024, the Registrant was dismissed from KIMS employment. Many of the concerns raised by KIMS outlined an underlying concern regarding the Registrant’s command of English.

Summary of the evidence:

HCPC:

20. The HCPC relied upon:

i. a hearing bundle of 192 pages;
ii. a skeleton argument of 9 pages;
iii. a second skeleton argument of 1 page;
iv. a notice to admit document consisting of 3 pages; and
v. oral evidence of Vesna Maglov – HCPC Registrations manager.

The Registrant:

21. The Registrant did not attend, nor provide any formal submissions for the Panel to consider. However, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s written submissions to the HCPC (outlined below).

Vesna Maglov (‘VM’) – Registrations Manager for the HCPC

(Below is provided as a summary of VM’s oral evidence to the Panel and is not intended to be a verbatim account of it).

22. VM outlined that she currently works as a Registration Manager for the HCPC Registrations Department. VM outlined that her primary role involves managing: a team of registration advisors; and the registration processes, including Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’) and renewal applications.

23. VM informed the Panel that on 24 November 2022, the Registrant submitted an application to be registered with the HCPC and that he did so utilising the HCPC online portal. VM stated that the Registrant’s application number was AA805881 and because the application was submitted online, there was no ‘hard copy’ of his application however, VM stated that she had appended a ‘screenshot’ of the Registrant’s online application to her witness statement.

24. VM also told the Panel that once applying to be registered with the HCPC, there is a declaration to be completed regarding English language proficiency. VM stated that to the question ‘Is English your first language?’ on the online application form, the Registrant replied with ‘Yes’. VM told the Panel that if an applicant answers no, then they will need to upload a test certificate but if they answer yes, then they will be exempt from this requirement. VM stated that as the Registrant had answered ‘yes’, he was exempt from having to upload a test certificate.

25. VM also told the Panel that the Registrant did not provide supporting evidence in relation to his level of English. However, VM also informed the Panel that no supporting evidence was required as he had answered that English was his ‘first’ language, so technically he would have been exempt from providing any further documentation to the HCPC.

26. VM also told the Panel that she had reviewed documentation submitted by the Registrant, to the HCPC on 24 April 2024, which consisted of an IELTS certificate, dated 26 August 2023. VM stated that having reviewed this document, she could confirm that the score achieved in all elements (reading (4.5), writing (5.5), speaking (5.5) and listening (4.0), the Registrant had obtained overall score of 5.0 which is below the score of ‘7’ required by the English proficiency requirements of the HCPC, and as outlined on the HCPC website.

27. VM further informed the Panel that the Registrant’s score of English proficiency is not sufficient to remain in the HCPC register because the IELTS score should be ‘7’ with no elements below ‘6.5’. According to the Standards of Proficiency, Registrants should be able to communicate effectively and if they are not able to, then this is a risk to the public.

28. VM also appended a number of exhibits to her witness statement, which were contained within the HCPC final hearing bundle.

29. In response to questions from the Panel and Mr Maughan, VM stated that the HCPC online registration application form would automatically default to ‘no’ in response to the question about English being an applicant’s first language and that an applicant would actively need to change the default answer to ‘yes’, which the Registrant had done in this case. Further, VM also informed the Panel that the following wording (“Please note – You only need to upload a test certificate if you answer ‘no’ to English being your first language. If you answered ‘yes’, you can move to the next section”) always appears on the application page beneath the question ‘Is English your first language?’.

The Registrant

30. Given that the Registrant had not attended the hearing, nor had he provided detailed written submissions to it, the Panel had regard to the correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC, contained with the HCPC final hearing bundle, as follows:

Email, and accompanying documentation, from Registrant to the HCPC dated 18 October 2024:

‘Re: confirmation of Authenticity of HCPC Registration and Proof of English Language Proficiency

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally address the concerns related to my Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) registration and to affirm that no fraudulent activity has occurred during the process. I also wish to reconfirm my English language proficiency in compliance with HCPC requirements.

1. HCPC Registration Integrity:

I would like to assure you that my application for HCPC registration has been made with full honesty and in strict accordance with the guidelines. All documents submitted, including academic certificates, identification, and professional qualifications, are genuine and have been obtained through legitimate means. I have adhered to all legal and professional standards, and I affirm that no fraudulent actions have taken place throughout the process.

2. English Language Proficiency:

In addition to the integrity of my registration, I can confirm that I possess the required proficiency in the English Language. I have completed my Higher secondary level Education of Govt. Higher Secondary school Ooraman and Diploma in anaesthesia and critical care technology from M.O.S.C Medical college Kolenchery where the medium of instruction was English. Moreover, I have consistently used English throughout my professional career, where clear communication with patients, colleagues, and other healthcare professionals is essential. In my work I completed Bachelor of Art in English from ISBM University.

I hope this letter and the accompanying documentation will effectively resolve any concerns regarding my registration and language proficiency. Should you require any further clarification or additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to a positive outcome’.

Email from Registrant to the HCPC, dated 25 June 2025:

‘Why are you treating my life like this

Im an [sic] not anymore in that country im in india right now and KIMS Hospital take me in a post as ODP in the hospital and they take my interview I get the registration from the HCPC as ODP. [sic] my verifications are clear you know that. So why are you irritating me. I have submitted my qualifications and in here im training PTE and preparing for the exam. Its so pressure for me. I did not [sic] harm to any patient or no [sic] any patients of any doctors compainted [sic] in kims hospital against me. The only reason is Lidnsey [sic] King the manager. What i did is I trusted in KIMS and came for a odp post. Also after i fall [sic] in there I return to my preparations and applied for other hopsitals. I got job in nhs but due the [sic] this fucking drama hcpc registration was banned. How cruality [sic] you have done to me. I came there for a better life for my family because you didn’t know about our struggling to get a change in there. My life is lost my career is lost everyday I am struggling and you are saying I am the culprit. I don’t believe in your justice because its not true. Its only a fucking shit [sic]. Im so sorry. There are all my frustration [sic].’

Decision on Facts

Panel’s approach

31. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

32. In reaching a decision, the Panel took into account all of the evidence and documentation presented to it and also the submissions made by Mr Maughan, on behalf of the HCPC.

33. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind’.

STEM

‘Your entry onto the HCPC register as an Operating Department Practitioner ODP041935 was:-’

34. The Panel had regard to: the HCPC final hearing bundle; the oral and documentary evidence provided by VM; and the Registrant’s written submissions to the HCPC. Having done so, the Panel was satisfied, to the requisite standard, that the Registrant had been entered onto the HCPC register as an ODP, with the aforementioned registration number and that the stem of the Allegation was made out.

Particulars 1 and 2:

1. ‘Fraudulently procured, in that when applying to be registered, you knowingly made a false declaration that English is your first language; or

2. Incorrectly made, in that when applying to be registered, you incorrectly declared that English is your first language.’

35. In considering Particulars 1 and 2, the Panel noted that the oral and documentary evidence it had received from VM, combined with the Registrant ‘s emails to the HCPC, both supported the fact that the Registrant had made an application to be registered with the HCPC, on 24 November 2022, to join the ODP part of the HCPC register and that this fact was not contested.

36. The Panel next considered whether English is the Registrant’s first language. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the HCPC language proficiency guidance outlined within the HCPC final hearing bundle and exhibited to VM’s witness statement. The Panel noted that the guidance stated:

‘People on the HCPC’s Register must be able to communicate effectively in English in order to meet our standards of proficiency.

You must declare whether English is your first language or not. You should only indicate English is your first language if it is the main or only language you use on a day-to-day basis. [*emphasis added]

Having studied English or undertaken education or training at an institution where the medium of instruction is English does not necessarily mean that English is your first language. If English is not your first language then you must provide proof of your English language proficiency…’

37. The Panel considered this guidance very carefully and noted that the guidance did not specify English as needing to be the language first learnt by an applicant. The panel noted that did the guidance also did not state it had to be the only language spoken by an applicant. In the Panel’s view, the guidance was clear that English should only be indicated as an applicant’s first language if it is the ‘main or only language used by them and that they used it on a day- to-day basis’.

38. In the Panel’s view, the guidance, as drafted, is subjective and open for an applicant to consider their first language to be English, if it is the language that they use on a day-to-day basis, albeit their command of the English language might be poor. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the Registrant had ticked the box indicating that English was his first language on the HCPC application form. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had repeatedly stated, in his correspondence to the HCPC, that he had been utilising the English language on a day-to-day basis and that he had also been educated, whilst studying, in English.

39. In respect of Particular 1 and the Panel’s consideration of whether the entry onto the HCPC Register was fraudulently made, the Panel reminded itself that it had to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the test for Fraud had been made out. This meant that the Registrant had been responsible for making: a false declaration which he knowingly made or made without a belief in it being true. Or one which he made recklessly, with the intention that the HCPC would rely upon that representation and that, in turn, the HCPC did rely upon that declaration thereby securing his registration.

40. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before it, including but not limited to, the Registrant’s communications with the HCPC and the documentation provided by him, the Panel was not satisfied that the HCPC had proved its case to the required standard, that the Registrant had acted fraudulently. In the Panel’s view, given the aforementioned guidance wording, the Registrant could have honestly believed that his first language was English given that he had asserted that he had “consistently used English throughout my professional career, where clear communication with patients, colleagues and other healthcare professionals is essential”. Whilst the Panel noted KIMS referral concerns regarding the Registrant’s communication and effective use of the English language, the Panel reminded itself again, that this case was not about the Registrant’s communication competency, but rather the Registrant’s declaration regarding English being his first language. In the Panel’s view, it was reasonable, given the wording of the guidance, for the Registrant to hold the honest and genuine belief that English was his first language if it was the main or only language used day-to-day. Further, the Panel also noted that the HCPC had not adduced any evidence to rebut the Registrant’s assertion that he did use English language day-to-day. The Panel also considered that the evidence outlined within the KIMS referral also tendered to support the contention that the Registrant was utilising English, albeit poorly, on a day-to- day basis.

41. Consequently, for the reasons outlined above, the Panel considered that the Registrant had not made a false declaration to the HCPC when he ticked ‘yes’ on his application form, in response to the question regarding English being his first language.

42. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant incorrectly declared that English was his first language. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant had wrongly indicated that English was his first language and that he was a native speaker at the point of his application by virtue of his day-to-day use of the English language. The Panel considered, based on the wording of the HCPC Guidance, that it had been open to the Registrant to make the incorrect assertion that he had, when the HCPC guidance was read simply and applying an ordinary interpretation to it. However, in forming the view that the Registrant had been incorrect in his declaration to the HCPC, the Panel had regard to: the fact that the Registrant had also declared that Malayalam was his first language on a subsequent IELTS certificate before it; failed his probation with KIMS (owing to ongoing communication concerns); and that he subsequently did not meet the required level 7 standard of IELTS, to warrant registration with the HCPC. Notwithstanding these matters however, the Panel considered that it was open to the Registrant to make the incorrect declaration and that it was reasonable for him to believe that English was his first language based on the wording of the Guidance and how that might be read by an ordinary interpretation of it.

43. Having determined that the Registrant’s entry onto the HCPC Register had been incorrectly made, the Panel determined that the only appropriate outcome, to safeguard the public and protect the reputation of the ODP profession and the HCPC as its regulator, given that the Registrant did not meet the required standards of proficiency (as determined by the IELTS certificate provided by him) was to order the Registrar to remove the Registrant’s name from the HCPC Register. The Panel considered that the entry was not open to being corrected in any material sense. There were no internal errors in the Register such as would be the case if the Registrant’s name had been spelt incorrectly or if the Registrant had been entered onto another part of the HCPC’s Register. In the circumstances, the Panel concluded therefore that the only appropriate outcome was for it to direct that the Registrar remove the Registrant’s name from the Register.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Paul George from the Register on the date that this order comes into effect. 

Interim Order

Noting that Mr Maughan had informed the Panel that there is an Interim Suspension Order in place which was not due to expire until 24 October 2025, and noting that Mr Maughan also did not apply to vary the Interim Order in any way, the Panel did not vary or revoke the existing Interim Order. The Panel considered that it was appropriate, in view of its direction to the Registrar to remove the Registrant from the HCPC Registrar, that an Interim Order should be in place to ensure both public protection and the public interest during any appeal period.

History of Hearings for Paul George