Stephanie Allen

Profession: Speech and language therapist
Registration Number: SL08900
Hearing Type: Review Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 09:00 02/04/2026 End: 16:00 02/04/2026
Location: Via video conference.
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Suspended

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 Finding Order Notes Hearing History

Allegation

As a registered Speech and Language Therapist (SL08900):

1. You were convicted on 23 June 2022 at Basingstoke Magistrates Court, of driving with excess alcohol on 8 June 2022 when you drove a motor vehicle, on Winchester Road, Andover, Hampshire, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 66 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit. This being contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

2. You did not disclose your conviction at Particular 1 to the HCPC as soon as you possibly could have done.

3. The matter set out at Particular 2 constitutes misconduct.

4. By reason of the above matters your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction and/or misconduct.

Finding

Allegation 
 
1. The following Allegation was considered by a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee at a Substantive Hearing on 17 and 18 November 2025: 
 
“As a registered Speech and Language Therapist (SL08900): 
 
1) You were convicted on 23 June 2022 at Basingstoke Magistrates Court, of driving with excess alcohol on 8 June 2022 when you drove a motor Vehicle, on Winchester Road, Andover, Hampshire, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, namely 66 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit. This being contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 
 
2) You did not disclose your conviction at Particular 1 to the HCPC as soon as you possibly could have done. 
 
3) The matter set out at Particular 2 constitutes misconduct. 
 
4) By reason of the above matters your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction and/or misconduct.”
 
2. The Panel at the Substantive Hearing found the following: 
 
Facts proved: 1, 2 
 
Facts Not Proved: None 
 
Grounds: Conviction (Particular 1) and Misconduct (Particular 2) 
 
Fitness to Practise Impaired: Yes 
 
Sanction: Suspension Order (4 Months) + Interim Suspension Order (18 Months) 
 
Preliminary Matters
 
Service
 
3. The Panel considered whether service of this hearing had been effected on the Registrant in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents. The Panel was mindful that the Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service.
 
4. The bundle provided to the Panel contained evidence that the Notice of Hearing, dated 03 March 2026 was sent by the HCPTS to the Registrant at her registered email address. The Notice of Hearing informed the Registrant of the date and time of the review hearing which would be conducted virtually.
 
5. An email delivery notification has been provided in the bundle confirming that the email was delivered on the same date and Ms Khorassani drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that more than 28 days’ notice was given. 
 
6. The Panel further noted that there had been email correspondence between the HCPC and the Registrant on 11 and 12 March 2026, pertaining to today’s hearing, which demonstrated that the Registrant had received the Notice of Hearing and was aware of the date of the hearing. 
 
7. The Panel was therefore satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents. 
 
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant 
 
8. The Registrant did not attend the hearing. Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. 
 
9. Ms Khorassani set out that Rule 11 of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee)(Procedure) Rules 2003 provides that the Panel has a discretion to proceed with a hearing in the absence of a Registrant if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve notice of the hearing on the Registrant and that it is fair to do so in the circumstances of the case. Ms Khorassani also referred the Panel to the Practice Note ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’. 
 
10. Ms Khorassani drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that it had already determined that service of notice had been effected properly and that the Registrant was aware of the hearing. She then went on to make submissions as to why the HCPC considered it would be fair to proceed today. 
 
11. Ms Khorassani referred the Panel to the cases of R v Hayward [2002] EWCA Crim. 168 and R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 in which the Courts set out the relevant factors to take into account when considering whether to proceed in the absence of the defendant in criminal proceedings. Ms Khorassani set out the relevant factors as being:
 
a. The general public interest and, in particular, the interest of any victims or witnesses that a hearing should take place within a reasonable time of the events to which it relates; 
 
b. The nature and circumstances of the Registrant’s absence and, in particular, whether the behaviour may be deliberate and voluntary and thus a waiver of the right to appear; 
 
c. Whether an adjournment is likely to result in the Registrant attending the proceedings at a later date; 
 
d. The extent of the disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence having regard to the nature of the case; 
 
e. The likely length of any such adjournment. 
 
12. Ms Khorassani submitted that this was a mandatory review and that it was in the public interest for it to be heard prior to the date it is due to expire (16 April 2026). She further submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself and that there was no definitive evidence that an adjournment would secure the attendance of the Registrant at a later date. 
 
13. Ms Khorassani accepted that there would be some disadvantage to the Registrant if the Panel decided to continue in her absence. However, she argued that this disadvantage would be minimal. Ms Khorassani reminded the Panel that a Registrant should not be able to frustrate the fitness to practise process due to lack of engagement and invited the Panel to find that in the absence of any good reason not to proceed, the Panel should use its discretion to proceed with the hearing today. 
 
14. The Panel carefully considered the email correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC between 11 and 18 March 2026. The Panel noted that the Registrant sent an email to the HCPC on 11 March 2026 setting out:
 
“I’m afraid I won’t be able to make 2nd Apr 2026, I’m afraid I am just coming out of recovery [redacted]. I am due back to work on 30th Mar 2026 [redacted]. Is it possible to make this later in the year?”
 
15. On that same day the HCPC had replied by email, setting out: 
 
“Thank you for your email, the order expires on 19 April 2026 and must be reviewed before then. I understand you have had some health matters; would you be able to attend another hearing before 19 April 2026(it is virtual)? If this is not feasible, an alternative could be that you provide written submissions to the panel and send in your documents beforehand. Please let me know if this is a viable option for you?” 
 
16. On 12 March 2026 the Registrant sent the following email:
 
“Hi Ms aurora, I may be able to arrange something before 19th Apr by video teams (we don’t use Zoom) but I don’t have any professional documentation to send you - my current position doesn’t lend itself to that. Can I let you know after [redacted] meeting on 25th Mar, or my return to work on 30th Mar? It’s all been a difficult situation.”
 
17. On 18 March 2026 the HCPC had replied:
 
“Firstly, please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I am covering your case for my colleague Nisha Aurora whilst she is on annual leave.
 
Unfortunately, we won't be able to wait until the 25th or the 30th as this would be too short notice given the order is due to expire on 19 April. Essentially there are two options you can take:
 
You can make a formal request for a postponement. There should be medical evidence to support this, in the form of a letter from a doctor stating that you are not fit to attend the hearing (a general fit for work note wouldn't be sufficient). We would then review the evidence, deciding whether to agree to it and whether we can reschedule the hearing in time.
 
You can provide written submissions for the hearing, which the panel will have sight of and will consider at the hearing on 2 April. These can be detailed submissions, or you may just wish to ask the panel for a short extension to the order to allow time for you to recover and engage fully. You would then have the opportunity to fully engage at the next review. It would also be possible to ask the HCPC for an early review if you had new information that you believed would make a substantial change to the order.
 
If you do wish to make a formal request for a postponement, or make any written submissions for the hearing, please send them through to ftp@hcpc-uk.org with ‘FTP.90855’ in the subject line as soon as is practicable. Please let me know if you need any clarification on the above, either by responding to this email or by giving me a call on (redacted).” 
 
18. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the relevant Practice Note ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and to the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162. This sets out that the Panel’s primary objective is the protection of the public and the public interest and that the “fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against medical practitioners is of very real importance”. In that regard, the case made clear that, “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed”. 
 
19. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant had sought a postponement and whether it was in fact an application for a postponement made by the Registrant that it needed to determine today. 
 
20. The Legal Assessor directed the Panel to the Practice Note ‘Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings’. The Panel noted that an application for a postponement must be made to the Operational Manager - Hearings and must set out the background to and reasons for the request and be supported by relevant evidence. The Panel noted that a decision on a postponement request is not made by a Panel but rather the Operational Manager – Hearings. 
 
21. The Panel was satisfied that, if the Registrant’s request made on 11 March 2026 was a request for a postponement, this was refused by the HCPC in its emails of 12 and 18 March 2026. 
 
22. The Panel then proceeded to consider whether it should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. 
 
23. The Panel noted that the general principle is that a Registrant has the right to be present at a hearing but that it has a discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence under Rule 11 of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003. 
 
24. The Panel first noted that they had already accepted that notice of the proceedings had been served on the Registrant in accordance with the Panel Rules. 
 
25. The Panel then went on to consider whether it would be fair in all the circumstances to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. 
 
26. In considering the use of its discretion, the Panel had regard to the representations made by Ms Khorassani on behalf of the HCPC, the legal advice it had sought and the guidance set out in the Practice Note ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’. 
 
27. The Panel was mindful that today’s hearing was for a mandatory review of a Suspension Order and was aware of the need to exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence with the utmost care and caution. 
 
28. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit any written representations or seek an adjournment and that this information was repeated in emails on 11 and 18 March 2026.
 
29. The Panel noted that there had been no further communication from the Registrant since the email correspondence between 11 and 18 March 2026, that the Registrant did not formally request a postponement and did not send any submissions or documents to the HCPC. 
 
30. The Panel noted that the Registrant had set out she had undergone surgery but that she was due back at work on 30 March 2026 and noted that the Registrant did not provide any further information or evidence regarding her health or her circumstances since the Suspension Order was made in November 2025. 
 
31. The Panel accepted that there would be some disadvantage to the Registrant if the case proceeded in her absence but submitted that the Registrant had been given the opportunity to formally request an adjournment, submit documents and provide a written witness statement, but had chosen not to do so.
 
32. The Panel was aware of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so. The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding and concluded that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had voluntarily absented herself. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.
 
Privacy Application 
 
33. Ms Khorassani for the HCPC applied for part of the hearing to be conducted partly in private to protect the Registrant’s private life on grounds that there might be reference to her health during the hearing. It is noted that the substantive hearing in this matter was held partially in private whenever there was reference to the Registrant’s health.
 
34. The Panel received and accepted legal advice and had in mind the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’. 
 
35. The Panel understood that all substantive hearings should be conducted in public unless there were compelling reasons for the hearing, or parts of it, to be heard in private. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to direct that if there was to be any reference during the hearing to the detail of the Registrant’s health, these should be heard in private. This was to protect the Registrant’s private life. The rest of the hearing would be heard in public. 
 
Background
 
36. The Panel took the following background summary from the substantive hearing on 17 and 18 November 2025 and the summary provided by Ms Khorassani: 
 
"1) The Registrant is a registered Speech and Language Therapist (“SLT”). At the material time, the Registrant was employed by North Bristol NHS Trust as a Space Manager Commissioner in the Estates and Facilities Department, a role for which the Registrant did not require HCPC registration. 
 
2) On 3 July 2023, the HCPC received a self-referral form from the Registrant in which she notified the HCPC that, on 23 June 2022, she had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol on 8 June 2022. Prior to submitting the self-referral form, the Registrant had been in contact with the HCPC by email on 6 June and by letter on 27 June 2023, in connection with her drink-driving conviction and had informed the HCPC that she had only become aware very recently that she was required to notify it of her conviction. 
 
3) The Registrant’s conviction related to being stopped in the early hours of 8 June 2022 by police who had observed the Registrant driving erratically. The Registrant was asked to provide a roadside breath test which she failed. The Registrant was arrested and later took a further breathalyser test at Basingstoke Police Station. The lower of the two readings at the police station was 66 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath which exceeded the prescribed limit. The Registrant was charged with a drink driving offence contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
 
4) On 23 June 2023, at Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court, the Registrant pleaded guilty to the drink driving offence and was disqualified from driving for 17 months (which could be reduced by 17 weeks if the Registrant completed a rehabilitation course by 20 May 2023). The Registrant was also fined £461, ordered to pay £85 towards the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) costs and a £46 victim surcharge. The financial amounts were subject to a collection charge order and due to be paid by 21 July 2022.”
 
37. The panel which met on 17 and 18 November 2025 was satisfied based on the Memorandum of Conviction, that Particulars 1 and 2 were proved. 
 
38. In relation to the personal component, the previous panel noted its view that the Registrant had largely “buried her head in the sand” and that there was no evidence before it to show that the Registrant had fully reflected on either the conviction or misconduct or taken any appropriate steps to remedy them.
 
39. In relation to the public component, the previous panel concluded that the Registrant’s conviction and misconduct had brought the SLT profession into disrepute, and further that it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the SLT profession if it did not find impairment in this case. 
 
40. The previous panel therefore found impairment on both personal and public grounds. The sanction determined upon was the Suspension Order imposed for a period of 4 months that the present Panel is currently reviewing. The previous panel considered that if the Registrant was given some time for proper and focused reflection, the Registrant should be able to achieve good insight and take appropriate steps to remedy her failings. 
 
41. The Order was imposed on 18 November 2025. After the time during which the Registrant could have appealed against the decision and Order imposed, it came into effect on 17 December 2025. The Order is due to expire on 16 April 2026. The decision of the present Panel is to decide what, if any, sanction is required from that date. 
 
Submissions to the Panel 
 
42. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Khorassani outlined the background to the case and summarised the decision of the final hearing panel. 
 
43. Ms Khorassani set out that the HCPC sought an extension of the current Suspension Order for a further 6 months on the basis that this would provide the Registrant with time to engage with the HCPC and provide any evidence that might show a change in whether her fitness to practise remains impaired. Ms Khorassani also submitted that an extension of the Suspension Order would give the Registrant time in light of the health difficulties that she had referred to in email correspondence. 
 
44. In support of the HCPC’s application, Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant has not shown that she has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding, and addressed that impairment sufficiently "through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement". Ms Khorassani in this submission drew the Panel’s attention to the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) which indicated that in practical terms there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he or she has actively acknowledged deficiencies and taken steps to address the impairment. 
 
45. Ms Khorassani also drew the Panel’s attention to the Practice Note ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and set out the factors at paragraph 14 which the Panel could take into account:
 
a. the steps which the registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision; 
 
b. the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed
 
c. the steps which the registrant has taken to maintain or improve his or her professional knowledge and skills; 
 
d. whether any other fitness to practise issue have arisen; 
 
e. whether the registrant has complied with the existing order and, if it is a condition of practice order, has practised safely and effectively within the terms of that order.
 
46. Ms Khorassani submitted that in considering these factors, the HCPC’s view was that the Registrant had failed to engage with the process. Ms Khorassani also reminded the Panel that the previous panel had made suggestions in its decision at paragraph 105 as to the steps the Registrant could take but that there had been no evidence that any of these had been adopted by the Registrant. 
 
47. On behalf of the HCPC therefore, it was submitted that the Registrant has not engaged with the process and as such there was insufficient evidence to show that her fitness to practise remained impaired. 
 
48. Ms Khorassani also made submissions regarding sanction. She argued that the appropriate sanction in this case was an extension of the existing Suspension Order for the same reasons that the previous panel had imposed this sanction. Ms Khorassani invited this present Panel to extend the Suspension Order by 6 months. 
 
49. No submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant have been received. 
 
Legal Assessor’s Advice 
 
50. The Legal Assessor advised that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Panel should consider the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to: 
 
1) extend, or further extend the period for which the order has effect; 
 
2) make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made; or 
 
3) replace a suspension order with a conditions of practice order. 
 
51. The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired. The purpose of the review is to consider: 
 
1) Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and 
 
2) If so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public. 
 
52. The Legal Assessor set out that the key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed and that the reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed” - Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a "persuasive burden" on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”. 
 
53. The Legal Assessor also reminded the Panel that the decision reached must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection. 
 
Decision 
 
Fitness to Practise
 
54. The Panel identified the reasons why the final hearing panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in November 2025, and whether all or any of those reasons had been satisfactorily addressed by the Registrant. 
 
55. The Panel noted that the previous finding was based on findings of both conviction and misconduct. The Registrant’s fitness to practise had been found to be impaired on both the private and public components. 
 
56. The Panel noted that the Registrant had failed to engage with the HCPC since the Suspension Order was made in November 2025 other than the emails of 11 and 12 March 2026 referred to earlier in this decision. The Panel noted in particular that the Registrant had not demonstrated that she had actioned any of the suggestions set out by the previous panel in the November 2025 decision or provided any explanation for this. 
 
57. The Panel did have in mind that the Registrant set out by email that she had undergone surgery, but noted that no medical evidence or further information was provided regarding this, save that she was returning to work on 30 March 2026. The Panel therefore considered that it had before it no explanation as to why no action had seemingly been taken since November 2025. 
 
58. The Panel accepted the HCPC’s submission that the Registrant had not demonstrated that she had shown sufficient insight into the shortcomings which were the basis of the impairment finding in November 2025. 
 
59. The Panel noted that there is no suggestion made by or on behalf of the Registrant (who, as noted, carries the persuasive burden in relation to the issue) that any steps towards remediation have been taken, nor any evidence of developed insight. Therefore, the risk of repetition into the Registrant’s conviction and misconduct remains unchallenged, and the personal component remains engaged. 
 
60. The Panel was also of the view that, given that there had been no material change to undermine the previous finding of impairment, confidence in the profession and regulator would be undermined should a finding of impairment not be made. 
 
61. It therefore follows that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no less impaired at the present time than it was in November 2025. 
 
62. This finding has the consequence that a further sanction is required when the present Order expires.
 
Sanction
 
63. In deciding what that sanction should be, the Panel reviewed the available sanctions in an ascending order of seriousness. 
 
64. The Panel first considered whether taking no action or making a caution order would be appropriate. 
 
65. The Panel found that neither of these options would be appropriate given that neither the conviction nor the misconduct could be described as “relatively minor in nature”. The Panel considered that there remained a real risk of repetition because the Registrant had not demonstrated insight into the conviction and into the causes of her misconduct and had provided no evidence of having remedied either. The Panel was satisfied that to ensure public confidence in the SLT profession was not undermined, it must consider a more restrictive sanction.
 
66. The Panel then considered whether conditions of practice may be appropriate. The Panel considered that to impose a conditions of practice order at the present time would be impractical and unworkable as the Registrant is not currently working as a Speech and Language Therapist and, in any event, the misconduct and conviction is attitudinal in nature and is not related to clinical practice. 
 
67. To impose conditions of practice would also be inconsistent with the guidance contained in paragraph 154 of the HCPC’s own Sanctions Policy, which sets out that conditions will only be effective in cases where a Registrant is “genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so”. As the Registrant has not engaged in the process so far, the Panel were not confident that she is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised. 
 
68. The Panel then considered an extension of the current Suspension Order. Having carefully considered the matter, and mindful of the content of paragraph 70 of the Sanctions Policy, the Panel concluded that an extension of the Suspension Order should be made for the following reasons: 
 
1) the Registrant has not shown insight;
 
2) at the present time, there is a real risk that the conduct may be repeated;
 
3) at the present time there is no evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.
 
69. The Panel, when considering a sanction, was also minded on whether a strike off order might be appropriate. The Panel noted that the Registrant has not engaged with the HCPC process to date, save the email correspondence with respect to today’s hearing. It concluded that, in light of the health difficulties she had mentioned, the Registrant should have an opportunity to further engage with the process and persuade a future panel that her name should remain on the Register should that be her wish. Therefore, a strike-off at this time, would be disproportionate and inappropriate.
 
70. The Panel considered that the appropriate length of the Suspension Order should be for a further 6 months. The Suspension Order will come into effect on 18 April 2026 and run until 18 October 2026. 
 
71. This Panel, as the panel before it, considered that when this order comes to be reviewed, the following might be of assistance to the next reviewing panel:
 
1) attendance (virtually or in person) of the Registrant at the review hearing,
 
2) a detailed reflective piece from the Registrant demonstrating her clear understanding of the seriousness of her conviction and its potential impact on other road users, and her clear understanding of the impact of her misconduct on service users, colleagues, her profession and the wider public interest, 
 
3) character references from any person by whom the Registrant is employed,
 
4) evidence of any steps taken to remedy the misconduct including relevant reading, study and training.

Order


ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ms Stephanie J Allen for a period of 6 months from the expiry of the existing order.

Notes

The Order imposed today will apply from 16 April 2026. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 16 October 2026. 

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Stephanie Allen

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
02/04/2026 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Suspended
17/11/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended