Tanya Smith

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.          Notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to her registered email address on 13 May 2025, and to her professional representatives on that same date. The Notice informed the Registrant of all of the matters that would be considered and the papers available for that purpose more than 28 days in advance of the hearing. An email delivery notification was provided.

2.          The Notice provided the Registrant with all of the relevant information and an invitation to submit written representations. The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with:

·       rules 3, 5 and 6 (which latter rules are additional requirements for register entry allegations) of The Health and Care Professions Council (Investigating Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003; (the rules), and
·       the HCPTS Practice Note Service of Documents dated June 2022.

3.          The Panel was satisfied that all of the necessary rules in relation to service of documents had been met in this case.
Application to Proceed in Absence

4.          Mr Schofield invited the Panel to proceed to hear and resolve this case in the absence of the Registrant and her professional representatives. He informed the Panel that several attempts had been made to contact the Registrant and her representatives to ascertain whether they would participate in this hearing or provide written submissions. The most recent response came from the Registrant’s representatives in an email dated 26 June 2025 stating; ‘I am attempting to meet with my client next week and will revert thereafter.’ There has been no further response from them despite ‘chaser’ emails to the representatives.

5.          Mr Schofield said that a call had been made to the representative’s office today, but the number rang out without answer.

6.          The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to;

·       the rules,
·       the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in the case of General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, and to,
·       the HCPTS Practice Note Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant dated June 2022.

7.          The Panel considered that all reasonable steps within the rules had been taken to provide fair notice of the hearing to the Registrant and a warning that the case might be resolved without her participation. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had, in effect, absented herself voluntarily from these proceedings. There was no information available to the Panel to suggest that any delay would result in the Registrant’s attendance and participation.

8.          The Panel observed that an unsuccessful application to adjourn the hearing had been decided at a preliminary hearing on 28 May 2025, at which the Registrant and her representatives had not attended. The medical certificate had not been sufficient to provide a proper basis for an adjournment on medical grounds. The Panel had not been provided with any additional application for an adjournment on medical grounds nor any additional medical evidence in that respect. Accordingly, the Panel considered that no such application had been made today.

9.          In all of the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair, not unjust, and in accordance with its duty to protect the public to proceed in her absence today. The Registrant has a duty to assist her regulator and proceeding today was in the public interest. The Panel noted that neither the Registrant or her representative made an application for an adjournment or a request for an oral hearing.

Application to Proceed in Private

10.       Mr Schofield, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, invited the Panel to conduct the hearing in private. He reminded the Panel that it had a discretion to do so where a sufficient justification existed which outweighed the public interest in open justice. In this case, Mr Schofield said, the entire case was in relation to the Registrant’s health and it would become difficult to separate out parts of the case which might be regarded as outside of the scope of those matters. Conducting the hearing in private would protect the Registrant’s right to respect for her private life.

Panel Approach

11.       The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to:

·       Rule 8.(1)(a), and
·       The HCPTS guidance provided in the Practice Note. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note Conducting Hearings in Private dated March 2017, and
·       Mr Schofield’s submissions.

12.       The Panel also carefully considered the public interest in the case being heard in public, which was the ordinary and expected course for any hearing.

13.       Having considered Mr Schofield’s application, the Panel was satisfied that the matters pertaining to the Registrant’s health should be heard in private to maintain the Registrant’s right to respect for her private life. The Panel was satisfied, having considered the matter carefully, that it would be impractical and in any event uninformative for the public to separate out elements of the case which might potentially fall outside of the privacy ruling. Accordingly, the Panel decided to hear the entire matter in private.

Documents

14.       At the outset of the hearing, the Chair confirmed that the Panel had been provided with the following documentation:
i)     Service bundle consisting of 5 pages;
ii)   Hearing bundle of 170 pages;
iii)  Addendum bundle of 36 pages;
iv)  A correspondence bundle of 7 pages, and
v)   A case summary of 11 pages.

15.       There were no papers or written submissions for or on behalf of the Registrant.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Tanya M Smith from the register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1.          Mr Schofield then submitted that it was necessary for the Panel to consider imposing an interim order for a period of 18 months. Any removal order was appealable and any such order to remove the Registrant’s name would not come into effect for at least 28 days. Where a person’s registration had been fraudulently obtained, it became necessary to protect the public immediately.

2.          Mr Schofield reminded the Panel that Article 31 of the 2001 Order permitted a Panel to impose an interim order at any time in a hearing. The Registrant had been made aware of that power in the Notice documents served on 13 May 2025.

3.          Mr Schofield submitted that an interim conditions of practice order was not an appropriate and proportionate order in circumstances where the Registrant’s probity and willingness to abide by the requirements of renewal of registration. The only viable interim order to fully protect the public was one of suspension.

4.          Mr Schofield said that an 18-month interim order would allow for the potentially extended period of time that was necessary for any appeal to be resolved. If no appeal were in fact made, the interim order would immediately expire on the Panel’s substantive order coming into effect.

Decision

5.          The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It recognised that it must act fairly and proportionately. Any interim order that it makes must truly be necessary, in that the public would remain at an unacceptable risk of harm from the Registrant’s unrestricted practice if no interim order were in place.

6.          The Panel was satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, the necessity for an interim order was clear and pressing. The Registrant had not practiced for an extended period of time. She had not supplied any evidence of good and effective, safe practice for that period. Her trustworthiness had come into question. Therefore, an interim order was necessary to protect the public and also in the wider public interest.

7.          The Panel first considered whether it could protect the public by means of an interim order of conditions of practice. The Panel decided that in circumstances where the Registrant had discontinued her engagement with her employer leading up her resignation from her post in November 2024, there was no basis on which it could be satisfied that the Registrant would engage with and comply with an interim conditions of practice order. Further, an issue of the Registrant’s personal probity had come prominently into view in her securing renewals fraudulently.

8.          In these circumstances there were no conditions which the Panel could devise that would secure patient safety and would command the trust and confidence of the public.

9.          Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate interim order was one of suspension.

10.       The Panel decided that it must impose the interim order for 18 months. Any lesser period might not allow an appeal to be resolved in that shorter time. In any event, if an appeal were made, the interim order will cease to have effect on the resolution of any appeal in the same way that it will cease to have effect if no appeal is made within the permitted 28 days for making an appeal.
 
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension order for 18 months under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.
This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.
 

History of Hearings for Tanya Smith