Sania Manjlai

Preliminary Matters
Application to amend particular 3
1.          At the outset of the hearing, prior to the Allegation being read, Ms Steels applied to amend particular 3 to replace the word “you” where it occurred in the phrase “which you submitted to the Home Office” and substitute therefore the word “were”. Ms Steels submitted that the HCPC did not seek to prove that the Registrant had actually physically sent the Medico-Legal Reports, but rather that the Registrant had prepared them.
2.          Ms Steels submitted that the proposed amendment was fair and did not materially change the nature of the particular.
3.          The Registrant stated that she agreed to the amendment.
4.          The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
5.          The Panel determined that the proposed amendment could be made without injustice or prejudice to the Registrant and was in the interest of all parties, including the public interest.
6.          The Panel therefore granted the application to amend.
Admissions
7.          Following the Allegation having been read, the Registrant stated that she admitted particulars 1, 2(a), 3, and 4. Ms Steels provided the Panel with a ‘Statement of Agreed Facts’ as follows:
“It is agreed between the HCPC and the Registrant that:

1.   The Registrant admits Allegation 1 in full. She admits the factual conduct alleged in that, between approximately November 2019 and 5 March 2020, Ms Manjlai practised as a Practitioner Psychologist whilst unregistered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC).

2.   The Registrant admits Allegation 2a in full. She admits the factual conduct alleged in that, as demonstrated within the Curriculum Vitaes appended to each of the Medico-Legal Reports produced within the evidence bundle (dated between October and December 2019), Ms Manjlai stated that she had undertaken work as a Counselling Psychologist from September 2017 until April 2019. This was a misrepresentation of her accreditations and / or experience as it was a false description. During that time she was not registered with the HCPC.

3.   The Registrant denies Allegation 2b. The Parties invite the Panel to determine this allegation to the requisite standard – has the HCPC proved the allegation on the balance of probabilities? – having regard to the evidence to be presented before the Panel and the submissions of the Parties at the final hearing.

4.   The Registrant admits Allegation 3 in full. She admits the factual conduct alleged in that, between approximately 30 October 2019 and December 2019, Ms Manjlai completed visits to individuals held in Immigration Detention Centres for the purpose of writing Medico-Legal Reports when she was not registered with the HCPC and/or qualified to do so. This related to the 21 cases as set out in Schedule 1. These Medico-Legal Reports were submitted to the Home Office.

5.   The Registrant admits Allegation 4 in full. She admits the factual conduct alleged in that, at the time of registering with the HCPC on or around 6 March 2020, Ms Manjlai did not inform the HCPC that she had practised whilst unregistered.

6.   The Registrant denies Allegation 5. The Parties invite the Panel to determine this allegation to the requisite standard – has the HCPC proved the allegation on the balance of probabilities? – having regard to the evidence to be presented before the Panel and the submissions of the Parties at the final hearing.

7.   The Registrant denies Allegation 6. The Parties invite the Panel to determine this allegation to the requisite standard – has the HCPC proved the allegation on the balance of probabilities? – having regard to the evidence to be presented before the Panel and the submissions of the Parties at the final hearing.

8.   In due course, the Parties will invite the Panel to determine the matters of allegation 7 (misconduct) and allegation 8 (impairment) as  matters for the professional judgement of the Panel, having regard to any further evidence to be presented before the Panel, and the submissions of the Parties, at the final hearing.”

8.          The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Admissions” and, in particular, paragraphs 13 to 15 thereof.
9.          The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions as set out in the ‘Statement of Agreed Facts’ were unequivocal and not made for reasons of expediency or other inappropriate reason.
10.       On Day 1, the Panel therefore found particulars 1, 2(a), 3, and 4 proved by way of admission. 
11.       During Day 2, it became apparent that the Registrant’s admission to particular 2(a) had been made on an erroneous basis and was not unequivocal. The Registrant therefore applied to withdraw this admission.
12.       Ms Steels did not object to the Registrant’s withdrawal of her admission to particular 2(a).
13.       The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
14.       The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s initial admission to particular 2(a) had been made erroneously and was not unequivocal. It therefore granted the application and consequently no longer found particular 2(a) proved by way of admission, and this would be determined having heard the evidence.

Application to sit partially in private
15.       At the start of the hearing, Ms Steels applied to the Panel to consider a joint application, or unopposed application, to sit in private whenever the hearing was considering matters of the Registrant’s health. The Panel was advised that Rule 10(1)(a) gave the Panel a discretion to sit wholly or partly in private and the Panel was referred to the relevant Practice Note. The Panel agreed to sit partly in private.

Background
16.       The Registrant is a registered Practitioner Psychologist. 
17.       On 12 March 2020, the HCPC received a referral relating to the Registrant from AS, an Intelligence Analyst at the Home Office, on 12 March 2020. 
18.       The referral alleged that since on or around November 2019, the Registrant had been visiting foreign nationals in Immigration Detention Centres and writing Medico-Legal Reports for them which were submitted to the Home Office. It was alleged that in these Medico-Legal Reports, the Registrant claimed to be a Counselling Psychologist registered with the HCPC when she was not, as she was not registered with the HCPC until 6 March 2020. The Registrant was therefore not entitled to use the protected title of Counselling Psychologist prior to her registration in March 2020.
19.       As part of its investigation into the referral, the HCPC obtained copies of various Medico-Legal Reports allegedly produced by the Registrant. It was noted that a Curriculum Vitae (CV) in the Registrant’s name had been appended to these reports. Examination of these CVs allegedly showed that in them, the Registrant had claimed to have acted in the role of a Counselling Therapist during the period 2017-2019 on the Grenfell Tower Project. Again, as she was not registered with the HCPC until 06 March 2020, the Registrant was therefore not entitled to use the protected title of Counselling Psychologist during the period of 2017-2019.
20.       Examination of the HCPC Register showed that the Registrant had not applied to be registered with the HCPC until February 2020, not being eligible to apply prior to the completion of her university doctorate in January 2020. 
21.       The Registrant’s university, the University of Roehampton, asserted that the Registrant had been provided with information as to her responsibilities in relation to becoming registered with the HCPC following completion of her course, and the requirement to do so to practice with a protected title. It was also asserted that she was provided with information as to roles during the course which she could take on as a trainee. 
22.       Enquiries were also conducted with the organisation for which the Registrant had worked during the Grenfell Tower Project, Hestia. Hestia advised that the Registrant’s role had been a Trainee Counselling Psychologist and that she had not worked in a managerial role as allegedly stated on her CV.
23.       The Panel heard from the following witnesses on behalf of the HCPC:
(i)     GLJ, previously Regional Director of Operations at Hestia.
(ii)    LL, Civil Servant at the Home Office.
(iii)  AM, Registrations Manager at the HCPC.
(iv)  AWBL, Registrations Adviser at the HCPC.
(v)   Professor MC, Interim Coordinator for the Counselling Psychology Course, University of Roehampton September 2022 – March 2023.
24.       The Panel also heard oral evidence from the Registrant.

HCPC evidence
25.       GLJ adopted her HCPC witness statement dated 23 September 2023 with a minor typographical amendment, and the documents produced by her. She confirmed her academic qualifications, employment history, and that she had been Regional Director of Operation with Hestia between 2014 and 2022. GLJ also told the Panel that Hestia operated in London and the South East providing mental health support services and had responsibility for the Grenfell Tower Project. She set out the managerial structure above the Registrant during the Registrant’s employment as a paid Freelance Counselling Psychology Trainee on the Grenfell Tower Project between September 2017 and April 2019.
26.       GLJ stated that Hestia would expect anyone engaged in the position of a paid Freelance Counselling Psychologist would be registered with the HCPC. She said that Hestia expected information on an individual’s CV to be accurate and therefore would not necessarily check the qualifications set out in a CV.
27.       GLJ confirmed that during her period of employment, the Registrant submitted 19 invoices for work on the Grenfell Tower Project. She stated that the Registrant’s role would be to provide emotional support, including practical interventions such as helping with housing, finance, and food. Ms GLJ said during the Registrant’s period of employment her point of contact in Hestia was Mr MP. She stated that in internal emails, the Registrant signed herself off as “Trainee Counselling Psychologist” and exhibited a number of these emails. She explained that it was not normal for Hestia to email trainee Counselling Psychologists.
28.       During cross-examination, GLJ confirmed that she was not aware of Mr Philips employing any other trainees. She refuted the Registrant’s suggestion that Mr Philips would often be absent for a number of days at a time or that the Registrant had taken on responsibilities beyond her freelance role. GLJ told the Panel that she had seen evidence of the Registrant undertaking a management role. She further reiterated that a Counselling Psychologist required to be accredited.
29.       In reply to Panel questions, GLJ accepted that the Registrant might have been delegated a task of co-ordinating others.
30.       LL adopted his HCPC witness statement dated 18 August 2023. He confirmed his academic employment history, in particular his past and current role in the Home Office in relation to asylum applications.
31.       LL told the Panel what had given rise to his colleague, AS, making a referral to the HCPC on 12 March 2020 regarding the provision of Medico-Legal Reports authored by the Registrant. He explained that the Registrant had been providing these reports to a firm of immigration solicitors acting for immigration detainees. LL confirmed that at least 21 reports had been authored by the Registrant and exhibited copies of these. He also explained the Home Office’s approach to the medical assessment of immigration detainees during the time period that the Registrant authored the Medico-Legal Reports.
32.       LL told the Panel what matters Medico-Legal Reports would cover and directed the Panel to the relevant policy in existence at the time. He stated that, in his opinion, the Registrant should have been aware of this policy and the criteria set out in it. He took the Panel through the criteria set out in the policy and how these would generally be reflected in Medico-Legal Reports. He also explained how these reports would be used in assessing whether an individual should be detained.
33.       LL confirmed that at the beginning of each report exhibited, the Registrant stated that her expert experience included “Counselling Psychologist, Doctorate in Counselling Psychology Accredited by the Health and Care professionals Council (HCPC) and the British Psychological Society (BPS)”, and that this was repeated in her CV appended to each report. He explained that at the end of each report there was also a declaration of truth made by the Registrant. He said these details led the Home Office to conclude that the Registrant understood her obligations when providing a report, in particular that she required to be registered with the HCPC.
34.       LL told the Panel that at the time the Registrant was producing the Medico-Legal Reports, the details of all authors of these reports were checked. A check was made on the Registrant’s qualifications and it was discovered that she was not registered with the HCPC, resulting in the referral to the HCPC.
35.       LL also gave his opinion on the potential consequences of the Home Office relying on the Registrant’s reports.
36.       In cross-examination, LL confirmed there had been no direct contact between the Home Office, that the reports had been submitted by a solicitor’s firm, and that the Registrant had not been employed by the Home Office. He also confirmed that the firm concerned had been subject to investigation and no longer provided immigration services involving the Home Office.
37.       AM adopted his HCPC witness statement dated 3 March 2023. He confirmed that he had been a Registrations Manager with the HCPC since October 2017.
38.       AM explained the process for applications for Registration to the HCPC. He told the Panel that the Registrant had applied to join the Register on 20 February 2020 and, after the application was processed, was admitted to the Register on 6 March 2020. He said a letter was sent to her on 6 March 2020 confirming her registration and that the letter included her registration number, details of her registration, and that she required to comply with the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics.
39.       AM referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Guidance for Practitioner Psychologists on joining the Register and also alternative methods of applying for admission to the Register.
40.       In cross-examination, he confirmed that there was a lot of information on the HCPC website and that it was the student’s responsibility to progress the application, not the University’s.
41.       AWBL adopted his HCPC witness statement dated 3 March 2023. He told the Panel that in March 2020 he was employed by the HCPC as a Registrations Advisor and since August 2021 had been employed by the HCPC as an Education Quality Officer. He explained what these roles entailed. 
42.       AWBL explained that he had reviewed the Education Department’s internal records and had been unable to find any record on the Registrant contacting the department or raising any concerns or queries. He detailed how such communications would have been recorded.
43.       AWBL explained that the role of Practitioner Psychologist is a protected title and what courses the Registrant would have been required to complete/qualifications held prior to registration. He stated that this information and further guidance on registration was on the HCPC website.
44.       AWBL also detailed the nature of an investigation carried out by the HCPC after receipt of a claim by the Registrant that she had been told by the University of Roehampton that she did not need to register with the HCPC to start practising as a Counselling Psychologist. AWBL stated that he carried out an investigation and concluded that the University of Roehampton had met the required HCPC standards for provision of information and advice to students as to when and how they would be able to practise in roles requiring registration with the HCPC. He explained that, in his opinion, it would be helpful for the University to have reminded students that they were only eligible to apply for registration on completion of their course and the students needed to make the formal application.
45.       In cross-examination, AWBL confirmed that students could contact the HCPC for advice on courses and that the Registration Department could provide such information. He confirmed contact information was contained on the HCPC website. In reply to questions from the Registrant, he provided further detail of how he undertook his investigation. He said he could not comment on any booklet or process in place at the University of Roehampton around 2015 regarding requirements for registration.
46.       In reply to questions from the Panel, AWBL confirmed that a student was eligible to register with the HCPC on completion of the relevant courses.
47.       Professor MC adopted his HCPC witness statement dated 17 June 2023. He confirmed his academic qualifications and employment history. In particular, he explained that between 5 September 2022 to 7 March 2023 he was employed as the Interim Programme Coordinator for the Counselling Psychology Course (the course) at the University of Roehampton.
48.       Professor MC explained that at the beginning of the course, all students were provided with a copy of the Course Handbook. He exhibited a copy of the Handbook for the years 2021/22. He explained that every student was expected to read this Handbook and act in accordance with the guidance in it. He referred the Panel to the section of this Handbook where it stated that the completion of the course made the student eligible to apply for registration with the HCPC. He further explained that on completion of the course, students were contacted to confirm graduation and provide any other assistance necessary. He further confirmed that the Registrant was sent an email on 15 January 2015 confirming her qualification and that she could apply for registration with the HCPC. He further explained that the Registrant was emailed on 24 January 2024 confirming that the HCPC had been contacted and asked to add her to its University Pass List, and this would allow her to apply for registration with the HCPC.
49.       When asked if the Handbook in 2015 would have been the same as that he had exhibited, Professor MC stated that he could not guarantee this, but did not think there would have been any major change. He stated that he could not see why there would have been any change and confirmed the Handbook would always have stated that a student could apply for registration after completion of the course and use the protected title after registration.
50.       Professor MC set out when the University of Roehampton had been contacted by the HCPC with concerns relating to the Registrant and, in particular, had been advised that the Registrant had asserted that she had been told by an employee of the University of Roehampton that, on completion of her course, she could practise as a Counselling Psychologist without registering with the HCPC. Professor MC detailed the investigation that had taken place after this.
51.       In cross-examination, Professor MC stated he could only “assume” that every student had been provided with a Handbook and could not guarantee this. He said that, in his opinion, it was important that every student received a copy of the Handbook at the beginning of the course. When asked if the Handbook was easy to read, Professor MC stated that there was “room for improvement”. When asked about difficulties a student might have in understanding the Handbook and whose fault this might be, Professor MC stated he could not answer that.
52.       When asked in cross-examination if continuity in academic guidance was important, Professor MC agreed. He stated that he could not comment if there were frequent changes in staffing and schedules around when the Registrant was undertaking her course. Professor MC accepted in cross-examination that consistency in staff was a core element of the course.
53.       During cross-examination, Professor MC accepted that there had been a meeting of students during the period when the Registrant was studying where a number of issues had been raised about one member of staff and that this member of staff had been removed as a research supervisor. He stated that he had no knowledge of any comments made by this individual to students during this period. When asked if the different elements of the clinical component and research elements of the course undertaken by the Registrant could give rise to confusion regarding when the course had been completed, Professor MC stated that, in his opinion, this was not the case. 
54.       Professor MC stated that, in his opinion, any failure by the Registrant to complete forms for registration prior to using any protected title would not have been deliberate or malicious.
55.       In reply to Panel questions, Professor MC estimated that there had probably been 5-7 staff members on the course completed by the Registrant and that it was not a requirement that these staff be registered with the HCPC.
56.       Following Professor MC’s evidence, two copies of the course Handbook for the period when the Registrant was enrolled on the course were exhibited with the agreement of the HCPC.

Registrant’s evidence
57.       When the hearing reconvened on 11 July 2025, the Registrant gave evidence.
58.       The Registrant told the Panel that she had had 5 years to reflect on what had occurred and took full responsibility for her mistakes. She stressed that her mistakes arose from a misunderstanding regarding the process of registration.
59.       The Registrant told the Panel that she had undertaken extensive professional development in the intervening period. She said that she still remained passionate about her career as a Counselling Psychologist. She said she had reflected and changed during this time.
60.       The Registrant provided the Panel with a brief outline of her time at the University of Roehampton. She said that she had become the Student Representative for her year and referred the Panel to meeting minutes she had attended in this capacity. The Registrant explained that the students had concerns about information provided regarding placements. She said there were concerns about entering placements and then finding they did not meet HCPC requirements and that the students wanted more support.
61.       The Registrant also told the Panel about difficulties she had encountered during the course with her supervisor and that she had needed to change her supervisor. She explained the dynamics of the relationship between herself and her initial supervisor as she saw them and how she felt she could not raise issues with this supervisor.
62.       The Registrant also explained difficulties she had encountered during her course and how she felt about the course, how it affected her during the period of her course and the period to which the particulars of the allegations relate.
63.       The Registrant explained that she finished the section of her course that required attendance at lectures on 29 March 2018 and graduated on 24 April 2019 after submitted her ‘Clinical Handbook’.
64.       The Registrant told the Panel that she tried to find placements where she “belonged”. She said she undertook the placement at Hestia and became involved with the Grenfell Tower Project and was enthusiastic about this placement and tried to set up counselling services. She said she was the only trainee working there and that she had received little guidance on what she should be doing. The Registrant told the Panel that she felt there were gaps in the support being provided and that she had sought to create groups to fill these gaps. She said a lot of communication between those involved in the project was done by email.
65.       In relation to her period of employment with Panta Rei, the Registrant told the Panel that the role she undertook was not the one she had applied for. The Registrant stated that she had not told her manager at Panta Rei that she had started her registration process and was awaiting final confirmation from the HCPC.
66.       The Registrant explained that in relation to the Grenfell Tower Project, she had been working alongside many other therapists and felt she was a big part of the project and working in a therapeutic and managerial role. She said she felt she had done a good job at that role.
67.       The Registrant stated that she had a lack of understanding of the registration process but accepted that she had failed to carry out “due diligence” into what was required.
68.       In relation to what was contained in her CV, the Registrant accepted that she should have been clearer about its contents. She further accepted that even though she may have felt that she was acting in a managerial role, this did not actually mean this was her role or job description. She stressed that she was unaware that her CV had been attached to any Medico-Legal Reports.
69.       The Registrant told the Panel that at the time she had not understood the ethical weight of her actions but accepted that it had been her responsibility to research such matters. She further accepted that it had taken her time to develop insight into these matters and fully reflect, but that she had done so.
70.       The Registrant explained that during the course there had been no liaison officer or guest speaker from the HCPC and, in hindsight, some guidance of this nature would have helped. She also explained that there were no lectures during the course relating specifically to the process of registration with the HCPC. The Registrant told the Panel that she felt overwhelmed and confused and there had been “a lack of clarity” from her supervisors over the issue of registration with the HCPC.
71.       In cross-examination, the Registrant was taken through her various responses to the HCPC that had been exhibited in the various bundles before the Panel.
72.       In cross-examination, the Registrant accepted that her CVs appended to the various Medico-Legal Reports stated that she had undertaken work as a Counselling Psychologist between 2017 and 2019 and this was inaccurate. She further accepted that she was not registered with the HCPC during this period. The Registrant accepted that she had compiled the CV but asserted that she was not aware that it was attached to each Medico-Legal Report.
73.       In relation to the Grenfell Tower Project, during cross-examination the Registrant asserted that she was involved in the hiring process of various therapists and was doing exactly the same role as a Counselling Psychologist on the project. She recognised that she was not hired to co-manage therapists on the project. 
74.       In respect of the admitted particulars 1 and 3, the Registrant accepted during cross-examination that she may have worked outside her scope of practice.
75.       In respect of the contents of her CV, during cross-examination the Registrant asserted that she was confused in relation to when she could use the title Counselling Psychologist. She explained that in spring 2018 she had concluded the clinical side of her course. She further explained that she knew in spring 2018 that she was not registered “but might be quite soon”. She said one of her “key problems” was misunderstanding who was responsible for taking ownership of the application for registration to the HCPC.
76.       In respect of her understanding of the registration process, during cross-examination the Registrant stated that she was confused about what she could do following her Viva in September 2019. She said she had tried to clarify this with the HCPC. The Registrant further explained that in early 2020, she became aware that another colleague had an HCPC registration number and, to err on the side of caution, she then applied to the HCPC herself. She accepted that at this point she was aware that there was a chance she was not in fact registered. The Registrant accepted that practising unregistered was a serious matter. 
77.       When asked how much she had looked at the Clinical Course Handbook, the Registrant stated “not much to be honest” and was unclear how much she may have referred to the HCPC website at the time.
78.       In relation to the Medico-Legal Reports, in cross-examination the Registrant stated that, when she started the job, she had been asked to provide the information contained in the document section of the report but had not realised it would be used in the reports as there was no “author section” in the template provided to her. She similarly stated that the template had not contained a section for the declaration of truth. In relation to the signature on each of the reports, the Registrant accepted that it seemed to be the way she signed documents and that she might have been asked to provide an electronic signature when she started the job, and this might have been used on the reports without her knowledge. 
79.       During cross-examination, the Registrant explained that she had originally produced a CV that had been uploaded to an online job site and this was where the manager at Panta Rei came across it. She stated that until she received the bundle of evidence from the HCPC in relation to this hearing, she had not seen the Medico-Legal Reports in the format set out in the bundle and that if she had done, she would have changed it. She said that she raised this with the HCPC at the time but understood this was unimportant.
80.       The Registrant further explained in cross-examination that she had been unable to find a template for a Medico-Legal Report before starting to do them and just used the template provided by her manager when she started the job. She said she was initially unaware that such reports required to have a declaration of truth, but may have become aware of this.
81.       During further cross-examination, the Registrant stated that at no time was it suggested to her that the CV she had uploaded would be attached to the Medico-Legal Reports. She accepted that the correct title for her role in the Grenfell Tower Project was a Trainee Counselling Psychologist, but that she had felt at the time she was doing the role of a Counselling Psychologist.
82.       During cross-examination, it was pointed out to the Registrant that the contents of the “author” section of the reports had changed during her period of producing them; the Registrant denied making these changes and suggested she may have had conversations with the company’s HR section which had caused them to change this section. She denied actively updating these sections.
83.       During further cross-examination in relation to the Grenfell Tower Project, it was pointed out to the Registrant that her email signature when in this role identified her as a “trainee”. She did not dispute this or that it was a reminder to her during her period at the Project that her role was that of a trainee. The Registrant further accepted that she was not and could not have been a Counselling Psychologist when in her role on the Grenfell Tower Project.
84.       The Registrant further accepted during cross-examination that she did not think that she could call herself a Counselling Psychologist before her Viva in September 2019 and therefore that to describe herself as being one before this in any CV was a misrepresentation. The Registrant also accepted in cross-examination that she exaggerated her qualifications and role in the Grenfell Tower Project to bolster her CV.
85.       In reply to Panel questions, the Registrant told the Panel that prior to undertaking the provision of Medico-Legal Reports, her experience of them had been restricted to that obtained on her university course. She also confirmed that she understood she required to complete all elements of her course before Viva and that the completion of her thesis was not optional. She reiterated that the Handbook was not well laid out, but did help in some areas. She also told the Panel that her time at the University of Roehampton had been a negative experience and she just wanted to leave university and get on with life.
86.       Following the conclusion of her oral evidence, the Registrant made an application for statements from JE, ZR, and NH to be admitted as hearsay evidence. Mr Collins did not object to this application.
87.       The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
88.       The Panel determined that the witness statements were relevant to matters either before it or that could arise. It noted that Mr Collins did not object to the admission of these statements and concluded it would therefore be fair to admit them.
89.       The Panel therefore granted the Registrant’s application to admit these statements.

Submissions
HCPC submissions
90.       Mr Collins, for the HCPC, submitted that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the standard of proof was that of the balance of probabilities. He further submitted that much of the factual matters before the Panel were not in dispute. Mr Collins referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.
91.       Mr Collins submitted that in assessing the issue of alleged dishonesty the Panel required first, on the balance of probabilities, to assess the Registrant’s actual state of mind and thereafter objectively consider whether the Registrant’s action would be considered dishonest by a decent ordinary person.
92.       Mr Collins first addressed particulars 2 and 6 together.
93.       In relation to the stem of particular 2 and the words “on varying dates”, Mr Collins submitted that purely on the basis of the Registrant’s own position that she drafted the CV, submitted it to an online employment agency, and relied on it to obtain work, this amounted to varying dates. 
94.       He further submitted that the ordinary everyday meaning should be applied to “misrepresented”. In this regard Mr Collins submitted that the Registrant was aware that the information on the CV was incorrect.
95.       Mr Collins further submitted that the Registrant did not dispute that during her period on the Grenfell Tower Project, her job title was that of Trainee Counselling Psychologist and not a Counselling Psychologist. He referred the Panel to the Registrant’s ‘email signature’ on an email dated 16 October 2017 where it clearly stated she was a Trainee Counselling Psychologist.
96.       Mr Collins further submitted that the Registrant had confirmed in evidence that she was aware that the title of Counselling Psychologist was protected and that she needed to be registered with the HCPC to use it. She also accepted that in September 2019 she was aware that she was not on the Register. 
97.       Mr Collins submitted that, even accepting that the Registrant misunderstood that she was registered at the time of her Viva in September 2019, she was fully aware that she and others were managed by Mr Philip. He argued that she had continually referred to him as her manager, not co-manager. Mr Collins submitted that the correct position was that the Registrant did not consider Trainee Counselling Psychologist to be a fitting title and minimised the role she undertook.
98.       Mr Collins submitted that given the Registrant’s state of knowledge, her actions would be seen objectively as being dishonest by an ordinary decent person. He accepted that an ordinary decent person might consider that there could be a degree of latitude on information regarding achievements on a job application, but knowingly entering incorrect information on a CV went beyond this.
99.       Mr Collins told the Panel that it was accepted by the HCPC that the Registrant may have been confused about her ability to work as a Counselling Psychologist prior to her registration post-September 2019, but suggested that the Panel should be cautious in accepting the Registrant’s account of the nature and extent of her confusion.
100.   Mr Collins submitted that the very existence of 21 Medico-Legal Reports was “clear and cogent evidence” that they were prepared by the Registrant. He further submitted that the Registrant’s explanation that she was not aware of the various sections of an expert report was incredulous given her academic background and her assertions that she had researched such reports prior to completing them. He also submitted that the Registrant’s explanation that she was not aware that experts’ reports had a declaration of truth and required to be signed was equally beyond credibility. He further submitted that the Registrant’s explanation had “evolved” as the hearing went on and noted that there was no mention of the explanations provided during the hearing by the Registrant in previous explanatory documents submitted by her to the HCPC.
101.   In respect of the Registrant undertaking management work, Mr Collins referred the Panel to the evidence of GLJ and submitted that she was clear the Registrant had not undertaken managerial actions and in her view that the Registrant’s manager would not have been absent for periods of time as suggested by the Registrant. Mr Collins submitted that given the nature of the Grenfell Tower Project, it was inherently improbable for any manager to be absent and uncontactable.
102.   In respect of particular 5, Mr Collins submitted that whether or not the Registrant had worked beyond the scope of her practice was a matter for the Panel. However, he submitted that the Registrant had provided no positive evidence that the work she had carried out was within the scope of her practice and that the Panel should consider whether at the time the Registrant held professional indemnity insurance and had been allowed to use the protected title of Counselling Psychologist.
103.   In conclusion, Mr Collins submitted that the Panel should find the remaining live particulars proved.

Registrant’s submissions
104.   In respect of particular 2, the Registrant told the Panel that she had not seen the Medico-Legal Reports in the format that was finally submitted and that the final format had been created by her manager of the solicitor’s firm who submitted them to the Home Office. She refuted the suggestion that this was inherently improbable and submitted that the way her manager had engaged with and responded to the HCPC showed it was very likely.
105.   The Registrant further refuted any suggestion that she had sought to use her time working in the Grenfell Tower Project to better her career prospects. She also submitted that GLJ’s opinion that her manager could not have been absent was conjecture and that GLJ had only said that she had been able to contact Mr Philip on the phone.
106.   The Registrant referred to the various documents submitted by her peers on the course and their evidence that the course Handbook was dense and complicated. She suggested that the HCPC had missed the opportunity to get any feedback from her peers and submitted that she had not had a good experience with her lecturers in providing advice.
107.   The Registrant submitted that all her actions had arisen from a lack of knowledge and misunderstanding and that she had not deliberately sought to mislead and had not been dishonest.

Decision on Facts
108.   The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the cases of Suddock v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin), Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Khan v GMC [2021]EWHC 374 (Admin), and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) in relation to its approach to the assessment of witness evidence, and to the case of Ivey v Gentings Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 in relation to the test for dishonesty. He also referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.
109.   The Panel considered each remaining particular of the Allegation in turn. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered how the relevant witness evidence fitted with the non-contentious or agreed facts, contemporaneous documents, the inherent probability or improbability of any account of events, and any consistencies and inconsistencies.

Particular 2 – proved in its entirety
2.     On varying dates between approximately April 2017 and 05 March 2020 you misrepresented your accreditations and/or experience in your Curriculum Vitae in that it stated that: 

a. you had undertaken work as a Counselling Psychologist from September 2017 until April 2019, during which time you were not registered with the HCPC;

b. you co-managed over 60 therapists for the Grenfell Tower Project when this was not the case and/or your role was as a trainee psychologist and/or student counsellor.

110.   In considering particular 2, the Panel took into account all relevant oral evidence, the witness statements of JE, ZR, and NH, and all documentary evidence before it. It also took into account the submissions of both parties.
111.   The Panel determined to consider the stem of particular 2 and limbs (a) and (b) its entirety as it concluded that the same factual matrix underpinned the stem and the limbs.
112.   The Panel determined that there was little disagreement between the parties in respect of the facts relating to this particular. In particular, the Panel took into account that the Registrant accepted as a matter of fact that she was the author of the contents of the CV, was fully aware of its contents, had supplied it to an online employment agency, and relied upon it to obtain employment. There was nothing before the Panel to undermine the Registrant’s acceptance of these factual matters.
113.   The Panel also took into account that the Registrant did not dispute that, during her period working at the Grenfell Tower Project, her job description was that of Trainee Counselling Psychologist. The Panel determined that this corresponded with the contemporaneous documents before it, including the Registrant’s job title in her email dated 16 October 2017. 
114.   The Panel took into account the Registrant’s evidence that she was not aware that her CV would be attached to the Medico-Legal Reports that were submitted to the Home Office. However, the Panel noted that the Registrant had told it that she had carried out research on expert reports prior to undertaking her own Medico-Legal Reports. Additionally, given her academic background, and further that she had undertaken the provision of these reports on numerous occasions, the Panel found the Registrant’s explanation that she was not aware of the format of the reports submitted to the Home Office to be improbable. The Panel therefore determined to reject the Registrant’s evidence that she was not aware her CV had been attached to the Medico-Legal Reports.
115.   In these circumstances the Panel determined, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant knew when providing the Medico-Legal Reports that the reports and her CV would be submitted to the Home Office. The Panel further determined, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant was aware that her CV would be used on the dates that these reports were submitted.
116.   The Panel also carefully considered the Registrant’s evidence that she was “confused” about how and when registration with the HCPC occurred. The Panel noted that the HCPC accepted the Registrant may have been confused about her ability to work as a Counselling Psychologist and the method and timing of her registration with the HCPC post-September 2019. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s evidence in relation to the lack of guidance she received during her course in relation to the registration process and carefully considered the various copies of the Clinical Course Handbook provided to it, in particular that in force during the period of the Registrant’s study. The Panel also took into account that the hearsay witness statement of NH corroborated the Registrant’s evidence regarding the Handbook. 
117.   The Panel took into account that the Registrant, in her evidence, had accepted that she knew the title of Counselling Psychologist was a protected title which could not be used without registration with the HCPC. The Panel further took into account that the Registrant, during cross-examination, had accepted that she was aware she was not on the Register prior to September 2019. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s position that she may have suffered from confusion as to her registration status prior to her Viva in September 2019 was improbable. In all these circumstances, the Panel determined that during the period September 2017 until April 2019, the Registrant was fully aware that she was not registered with the HCPC and therefore not entitled to use the protected title of Counselling Psychologist.
118.   The Panel therefore concluded that during the period set out in the stem of particular 2, the Registrant had misrepresented her accreditations and experience in her CV by stating that she had undertaken work as a Counselling Psychologist when not registered with the HCPC.
119.   Particular 2(a) was therefore found proved.
120.   In relation to particular 2(b), the Panel noted the evidence of GLJ that the Registrant had not undertaken managerial actions and her view that the Registrant’s manager would not have been absent for periods of time as suggested by the Registrant. The Panel considered that, other than the Registrant’s assertions that Mr Philip had been absent for periods of time, there was no independent evidence before it that this had occurred. The Panel noted Mr Collins’ submissions that given the nature of the Grenfell Tower Project it was inherently improbable for any manager to be absent and uncontactable. The Panel considered that, given the nature of the project, if any manager had been absent there would be some record of this. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s assertions were not supported by contemporaneous documentation or other corroborating evidence. In these circumstances the Panel determined that the Registrant’s assertions that Mr Philip had been absent were improbable and rejected them. 
121.   In these circumstances, the Panel determined that, during the period set out in the stem on particular 2, the Registrant had misrepresented that she had comanaged 60 therapists for the Grenfell Tower Project when this was not the case and when her role was that of a Trainee Counselling Psychologist.
122.   The Panel therefore found particular 2(b) proved.
123.   Particular 2 was therefore found proved in its entirety.
Particular 5 – proved 
5.  In respect of particulars 1 and/or 3 you worked beyond your scope of practice.

124.   In considering particular 5, the Panel took into account all relevant oral evidence, the witness statements of JE, ZR, and NH, and all documentary evidence before it. It also took into account the submissions of both parties.
125.   The Panel noted that particulars 1 and 3 had been found proved by way of the Registrant’s unequivocal admission and determined that the question of whether the admitted factual matrix of particulars 1 and 3 fell outside the scope of the Registrant’s practice was a matter for it considering all relevant facts and circumstances.
126.   The Panel determined that the scope of practice of a Counselling Psychologist was not defined simply by an individual’s qualifications, accreditation, and experience, but in the case of a Counselling Psychologist by registration with the HCPC. It also took into account that the Registrant offered no evidence that particulars 1 and 3 fell within her scope of practice during the chronological periods set out in these particulars.
127.   The Panel did not consider that having professional indemnity insurance was relevant to its considerations of the Registrant’s scope of practice.
128.   The Panel determined that during the chronological periods set out in particular 5, whilst the Registrant may have satisfied all the requirements of her course at the University of Roehampton, she was not registered with the HCPC. The Panel further determined that, during the relevant period set out in particulars 1 and 3, the Registrant was not registered with the HCPC. The Panel noted that it was agreed between the parties that the title of Counselling Psychologist was a protected title and could only be used if the practitioner was registered with the HCPC. In light of this requirement, the Panel determined that in respect of particulars 1 and 3, the Registrant required to be registered with the HCPC to be working within the scope of her practice. As she was not, the Panel determined that in respect of particulars 1 and 3 the Registrant worked beyond the scope of her practice.
129.   Particular 5 was therefore found proved.
Particular 6 – proved 
6. Your conduct as described at Particular 2 was dishonest.

130.   In considering particular 6, the Panel took into account all relevant oral evidence, the witness statements of JE, ZR, and NH in so far as relevant, and all documentary evidence before it. It also took into account the submissions of both parties and the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.
131.   The Panel applied the test for dishonesty set out in the case of Ivey v Gentings Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 and further defined in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.
132.   The Panel first considered what the Registrant knew or believed as to the facts and circumstances in which the dishonesty arose. The Panel took into account its findings in respect of particular 2.
133.   The Panel determined that the Registrant misrepresented her accreditations and experience as set out in particular 2. In finding particular 2 proved, the Panel determined that the Registrant was aware that the information in her CV was misleading and that she used it for the purposes of obtaining employment and as part of expert reports submitted to the Home Office. The Panel also rejected the Registrant’s explanation that she was confused about the HCPC registration process prior to September 2019. The Panel also determined that the Registrant was fully aware that she had not taken undertaken managerial duties for the Grenfell Tower Project and at this time she was still a Trainee Counselling Psychologist.
134.   The Panel concluded that the Registrant had acted as found proved in particular 2 for her own benefit, namely overstating her qualifications in order to more easily obtain work. The Panel further considered that the Registrant’s actions in entering misleading information on her CV went beyond overstating her work achievements.
135.   In this context and these circumstances, the Panel determined that an ordinary decent person would consider the Registrant’s conduct found proved in particular 2 to be dishonest.
136.   Particular 6 was therefore found proved.
 
Decision on Grounds and Impairment
137.   The Panel, having found each of the six factual particulars of the Allegation proved, either by reason of the Registrant’s admission or its own findings on the evidence, went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Practitioner Psychologist is currently impaired.
138.   The parties confirmed that they were content to deal with these stages of the proceedings together and the Panel was of the view that it was appropriate and fair to proceed in this way.
139.   The Registrant provided to the Panel her further bundle of documents, entitled “FTP Impairment Stage Bundle 12/2025”. This bundle of 30 pages included sections on Introduction and Personal Reflection, CPD and Training, Personal and Professional Growth, Reflection and Insight, and Future Development Plan. The Registrant relied on this bundle at this stage of the hearing and confirmed that she did not wish to call any other evidence. 
140.   Mr Collins referred the Panel to the Case Summary prepared by the HCPC. He submitted that the Registrant had breached professional standards, as referred to in that document. He submitted that the Panel had found that the Registrant had committed clear and significant breaches of the professional standards. Mr Collins submitted that the use of professional titles is protected by criminal sanctions for breach as an indication of the seriousness of breach.
141.   Mr Collins submitted that the Registrant had been guilty of a total and gross lack of care to establish her registration position. The Registrant had acknowledged that she had not done enough to check the Register. However, the lack of registration was “dwarfed” by the dishonesty allegations and the Registrant having included misrepresentations in her CV attached to 21 important documents.
142.   On the matter of impairment, Mr Collins submitted that the Panel must look at the Registrant’s past conduct in order to assess the risk of repetition. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment” (“the Practice Note”) and the ‘three-stage’ test referred to there, taken from GMC v Cohen [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin).
143.   Mr Collins submitted that it was noted in the cases that attitudinal issues are harder to remediate. He submitted that in the Registrant’s case there were attitudinal concerns due to the scale of departure from the standards. He further submitted that there was not solely the dishonest conduct but also the failure to check the registration position.
144.   Mr Collins submitted that the Panel’s assessment of insight is an important factor. He referred the Panel to the Registrant’s earlier responses to the HCPC concerning the allegations. He also took the Panel to the factors concerning a ‘rejected defence’ as set out in the Practice Note, taken from Sawati v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 283. Mr Collins submitted that the Registrant had shown limited evidence of real insight.
145.   Mr Collins submitted that in any event, matters of remediation are of less significance when the ‘public’ component of impairment is engaged. He submitted that, in light of the proven dishonesty, the importance of the reports in question, the lack of insight, and serious departures from professional standards, there was a need to find impairment in order to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards. 
146.   The Registrant submitted that she accepted the Panel’s findings of fact, including its finding of dishonest conduct. She acknowledged the seriousness of those findings. The Registrant did not regard her failings as a matter of ‘oversight’. She had made extreme misjudgements which she did not intend to defend, she submitted.
147.   The Registrant submitted that she had reflected on the allegations. However, reading further into her reflections document, the Registrant said she had stated she was addressing where she had come to on a journey. In the initial stages, the Registrant stated, she had not understood the seriousness of the concerns. She had achieved realisations which were crucial in her growth as a professional. The Registrant submitted that the matters in question had now occurred around six years ago. Since that time, the Registrant submitted, physiological cerebral development would have improved her decision-making.
148.   The Registrant stated that she understood the HCPC registration process is designed to protect the public. Hers had been an unintended breach of regulation. The Registrant submitted that she had gone on in her reflections to outline standards about honesty and public trust. She had provided an Action Plan as to her plans to remediate her conduct. 
149.   The Registrant submitted that she had completed a lot of Continuing Professional Development (CPD); she had instituted a lot of processes and sought out appropriate supervision. The Registrant submitted that she had embedded her passions for the profession into her daily life. In the past, the Registrant stated that she had found some supervisors whom she did not find quite supportive. There was a lack of representation for the Registrant’s community and a lack of knowledge of spirituality. The Registrant submitted that she had now found mentors more aligned with her values.
150.   The Registrant acknowledged that certain misconduct is said to be hard to remediate. However, she submitted, the primary tool is reflection and the Registrant had reflected on a deep, not just a surface, level.
151.   The Registrant told the Panel about her charity work with an orphanage near to where she had grown up. The Registrant submitted that this had put her in a space to build up her character and given her the ability to ask a lot of questions. 
152.   The Registrant submitted that, on the ‘personal’ component of impairment, she believed that the risk of repetition was low. The Registrant submitted that she had implemented checklists and systems to prevent recurrence. Furthermore, she had built a community and network of support and she is passionate about her work as a Practitioner Psychologist. 
153.   In relation to the ‘public’ component, the Registrant submitted that over the past six years she had re-educated herself. She had worked in the charity sector and in voluntary roles. The Registrant submitted that the Panel is entitled to take account of the witness statements concerning her character, together with the Registrant’s journey of development.
154.   The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the decisions on misconduct and impairment were a matter for its own judgement, not involving a burden or standard of proof. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. 
155.   He advised the Panel that first it had to decide whether its findings of fact amounted to misconduct, the statutory ground. This had to be conduct which was serious professional misconduct. 
156.   In respect of any serious professional misconduct found, the Panel then had to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. He advised that impairment may be seen to have two aspects; the personal component, which considered the risk of repetition, and the public component, which regarded wider issues of public confidence in the profession and professional standards. 
157.   The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the Practice Note and the guidance on the matter of insight and the ‘rejected defence’ in the Sawati case. He advised that the Practice Note guides the Panel to consider whether the misconduct is remediable, has been remedied, and is highly unlikely to be repeated. He also reminded the Panel of the approach to determining impairment referred to in CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and taken from the 5th Shipman Report by Dame Janet Smith. He also advised that in the Grant case the court had stated that a finding of impairment may be justified on the ground it was necessary to maintain public confidence and professional standards. 

Panel decision
158.   The Panel first considered each of its findings on the facts and whether these amounted to serious professional conduct to satisfy the statutory ground of impairment. 
159.   The Panel took into account the evidence, the Panel’s findings at the previous facts stage, the further documentary evidence received at this stage, and the parties’ submissions. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 
160.   The Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and had regard to the guidance therein. The Panel was mindful that not every finding of fact was sufficient to amount to misconduct as a statutory ground. For the purposes of the statutory ground, the Panel had to be satisfied that the findings amounted to serious professional misconduct.
161.   As to the matter of seriousness of misconduct, the Panel bore in mind that this was a matter for its own judgement. As regards the applicable professional standards, the Panel had regard to the appropriate professional standards contained in the HCPC’s “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics” (2016 version) which had applied at the time of the conduct in question.
162.   The Panel also took into account that not every finding of serious professional misconduct will result in a finding of impaired fitness to practise. The Panel was careful to make its judgement on the Registrant’s current fitness to practise as a Practitioner Psychologist. 
163.   The Registrant had admitted, in relation to particular 1 of the Allegation, that between approximately November 2019 and 05 March 2020 the Registrant had practised as a Practitioner Psychologist whilst unregistered.
164.   The Panel considered that the lack of registration had persisted for a significant period, during which the Registrant had been outside the system of regulation devised for the protection of the public. This had constituted a breach of the trust that the public place in the profession to have suitable oversight and control. 
165.  The Panel accepted Mr Collins’ submission that the title of ‘Counselling Psychologist’ was a protected title and it was a breach of the law to practise without the registration necessary to be able to use the title. Practice without registration also resulted in the Registrant working outside of the scope of practice enforced by registration with the HCPC.  The Panel had found that the Registrant had been aware of the need for registration and also that she was not registered. Although the Registrant suggested she had not intended to invite the consequences of a lack of registration, the Panel had found that during the period September 2017 until April 2019, the Registrant was fully aware that she was not registered with the HCPC and therefore not entitled to use the protected title of Counselling Psychologist.
166.   The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct had breached Standards 3.4 and 9.1:
3.4 You must keep up to date with and follow the law, our guidance and other requirements relevant to your practice

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

167.   The Panel determined that this was a serious failure due to the period over which it persisted, the practice in which the Registrant had engaged, and the risk to public protection. The Panel decided that this was serious professional misconduct. 
168.   In relation to particulars 2(a) and 2(b), the Panel had found that the Registrant had created a CV containing material misrepresentations. It had found that the Registrant had known that her CV would be attached to her Medico-Legal Reports and had rejected her account she was not so aware. The Registrant had accepted that she had known the title ‘Counselling Psychologist’ is a legally-protected title and also knew of her lack of registration at the relevant time. 
169.   Further, in relation to particulars 2(a) and 2(b) and particular 6, the Panel had made a finding of dishonest misconduct on the basis of the Registrant having been aware that there were misrepresentations in her CV and that these had been made for the Registrant’s own benefit.
170.   The Panel determined that its findings in particulars 2(a), 2(b), and 6 amounted to a serious falling short of the standards expected of Practitioner Psychologists, and in particular Standard 9.2, which states:
9.2 You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.

171.   The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s CV had been attached to 21 Medico-Legal Reports which had been prepared in respect of vulnerable service users in important official immigration processes with the Home Office. 
172.   The Panel considered that particulars 2(a), 2(b), and 6 amounted to serious professional misconduct. 
173.   The Panel noted that particular 3, which the Registrant had admitted, concerned the Registrant’s visits to Immigration Detention Centres for the purposes of writing Medico-Legal Reports when not registered and/or qualified to do so. 
174.   With regard to visiting individuals held in Immigration Detention Centres for the purpose of writing Medico-Legal Reports, the Panel considered that the lack of the Registrant’s registration was established as misconduct in particular 1 (except for the additional two days in October 2019). The additional misconduct dealt with in particular 3 was that the Registrant undertook these visits and authored these Medico-Legal Reports when she was not qualified to do so. The Panel determined that this breached Standard 3.1, which stated:
3.1 You must keep within your scope of practice by only practising in the areas you have appropriate knowledge, skills and experience for.

175.   The Panel considered that the lack of the Registrant having been appropriately qualified at the time was a serious matter and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
176.   Particular 4 concerned the Registrant having failed to inform the HCPC, having been registered with the HCPC on 06 March 2020, that she had been previously practising as a Practitioner Psychologist without registration.
177.   The Panel considered that this breached the requirements of honest and trustworthy behaviour and, in particular, Standard 9.1 (above), given that the Registrant’s omission to inform the HCPC undermined the process of regulation. The Panel determined that this was serious professional misconduct.
178.   The Panel’s decision in relation to particular 5 had been that the lack of the Registrant’s registration with the HCPC meant that she was not working within the scope of practice which applied to registered Practitioner Psychologists. The Panel considered that this was an inherent aspect of the lack of registration and was part of the serious professional misconduct within particulars 1 and 3, already considered above.
179.   The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s misconduct satisfied the statutory ground of misconduct in relation to each of the particulars 1 to 6 of the Allegation inclusive. The Panel therefore went on to next consider whether it determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. 
180.   The Panel took into account the submissions of the parties. It heard and accepted the legal advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel also had careful regard to the guidance on impairment from the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. 
181.   The Panel considered that the written submissions provided by the Registrant, who was unrepresented, were thoughtful and detailed. It considered her oral submissions to be structured and relevant.
182.   The Panel therefore considered that whether there was current impairment depended on its assessment of the likelihood of repetition and the key matters of the Registrant’s development of insight and remediations. 
183.   The Panel accepted the submission made by Mr Collins that dishonest misconduct is indicative of attitudinal issues. The Panel bore in mind that there is an acknowledged ‘spectrum’ of dishonesty. The courts have indicated that the Panel must engage with the circumstances of the particular dishonesty. The Panel considered that it was relevant that the dishonest misconduct in particulars 2(a) and 2(b) had occurred over a considerable period and had involved the submission of a number of Medico-Legal Reports by the Registrant.
184.   In addition, the lack of the Registrant’s registered status had undermined the important public protection framework of oversight provided by the Regulator.
185.   The Panel concluded that, whilst in principle the Registrant’s misconduct was remediable, the attitudinal element in respect of the dishonesty in particular meant that good and persuasive evidence of remediation was required if the Panel was to be satisfied concerning its completeness. 
186.   The Panel considered that the Registrant’s remediation bundle was detailed, as were her oral submissions. However, the Panel noted that much of the learning undertaken had been completed within a relatively short period at the start of 2025. The Panel also took into account the Registrant’s documents in the main hearing bundle. It also took account the witness statements of her former course mates. Whilst these were relatively positive, the Panel gave them limited weight as they did not refer in detail to the Allegation or offer recent knowledge of the Registrant following completion of her course.
187.   The Panel considered, however, that the Registrant’s demonstration of reflection and the development of insight was lacking when measured against the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel was of the view that there was a lack of recognition of the seriousness of the risk to the public caused by the Registrant’s lack of registration. 
188.   Further, in the Panel’s view, the Registrant provided insufficient detail of the mitigations and underlying framework which she had in place to prevent any future recurrence in her practice. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant, although stating that she accepted responsibility, sought too much justification for herself from her criticisms of her higher educational institution. The Registrant stated in oral submissions that she fully accepted responsibility for her failings; nevertheless, she had earlier on in her responses sought to characterise her CV misrepresentations as “due to a combination of misunderstanding, poor oversight, and a tendency to people please”. 
189.   The Panel considered that, as an allegation amounting to a deceit, the knowing misrepresentation was a ‘primary’ instance of dishonesty. The Panel considered that, even considering the guidance of the judgment in Sawati, it was not unfair to decide that this was something of a minimisation of the Registrant’s responsibility for her misconduct.
190.     In conclusion, the Panel decided that whilst the Registrant has reflected on her misconduct to a degree and has provided some evidence of remediation, she has yet to gain full insight. The Panel considered that the Registrant had not demonstrated sufficient insight regarding the impact of her actions on risk to the public and the profession’s reputation. Furthermore, in view of its finding on dishonesty and the severity of that misconduct, the Panel determined that, as it had limited evidence of the Registrant’s insight into this, there remains a material risk of repetition. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s insight has not, at present, reached a point where it can be said that her misconduct is ‘highly unlikely’ to be repeated.
191.   The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the ‘personal’ component of impairment.
192.   Regarding the ‘public’ component of impairment, the Panel considered the formulation of Dame Jane Smith, cited in the case of Grant. The Panel noted that there had been no evidence of actual harm caused by the Registrant’s misconduct. However, bearing in mind that the Registrant’s Medico-Legal Reports and visits to the Immigration Detention Centres had been undertaken when she was not registered and/or qualified, these had created a risk of harm to the vulnerable subjects of the reports. 
193.   The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct had brought the profession into disrepute. Members of the public would be alarmed that a Practitioner Psychologist was practising without proper qualification or appropriate oversight. The Panel also considered that honesty and trustworthiness, as well as being part of the Standards, were also fundamental tenets for the profession. The Panel had also found that the Registrant had committed dishonest misconduct. 
194.   The Panel noted that the Grenfell Tower fire was a matter of high public profile. It followed that misrepresentations in relation to it were likely to affect public confidence. In addition, prejudicing the process of regulation by undertaking unregistered practice and engaging in dishonest misconduct were also matters which affected public confidence in and the maintenance of professional standards for the profession. Members of the public were likely to be shocked by the misconduct in this case, the period over which it had occurred, and the number of Medico-Legal Reports involved.
195.   The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the ‘public’ component of impairment.

Decision on Sanction
196.   The Panel, having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, next considered what, if any, further step to take pursuant to Article 29 and any sanction it should impose.
197.   Mr Collins submitted that the HCPC made no positive submission on the matter of any sanction. He referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (March 2019) (“the Sanctions Policy”). He submitted that any sanction was not intended to be punitive and must be proportionate. Mr Collins submitted that the Panel should approach sanction from the least restrictive moving upwards. 
198.   Mr Collins referred the Panel to the section of the Sanctions Policy which dealt with dishonesty cases. He submitted that the Panel should consider whether there had been any aggravating or mitigating factors in the case. Mr Collins referred the Panel to sections of its impairment determination and the Panel’s consideration of the Registrant’s insight and impairment contained therein.
199.   The Registrant offered the Panel her sincere apologies for her misconduct. She submitted that she understood the issues involved serious breaches of standards in practising whilst unregistered and dishonesty. 
200.   The Registrant stated that she understood the role of the Panel was to protect the public. She had been through an extensive fitness to practise process over the last six years. The Registrant submitted that she fully accepted responsibility for the misconduct. She acknowledged her serious failures. 
201.   The Registrant submitted that she acknowledged and accepted her dishonesty had not been minor and had the effect of undermining trust in the profession. She accepted that she has had opportunities to prevent it.
202.   The Registrant submitted that she now understood more clearly the effect of her misconduct. She said it had affected the quality and reliability of the profession and the wider public trust which the public is entitled to place in the profession. She appreciated that the public relies on protected titles to demonstrate meeting required professional standards and regulation.
203.   The Registrant acknowledged that no specific harm had been found to have been caused, but there had been a risk of harm. She accepted that the Grenfell Tower disaster remains a national tragedy and she ought to have been even more scrupulous. However, she submitted that she had been motivated by a genuine intent to help, though this did not excuse misusing her title.
204.   The Registrant submitted that she had been living with guilt and shame over her misconduct, which had been extremely difficult early in her career. She was “angry” for putting herself in that position and for others.
205.   The Registrant submitted that she had renewed her commitment to living in line with her core values. The Registrant’s faith was central in her journey. The Registrant submitted that she used the ‘Gibbs’ reflective cycle model to evaluate her own performance after she had changed her approach. Since the events, the Registrant stated, she had not undertaken professional practice but only voluntary work.
206.   The Registrant submitted that she had undertaken targeted CPD from 2024. Her training had reinforced her knowledge and understanding of ethical practice as a key process. In terms of practical steps, the Registrant submitted that she had put in a framework to ensure detailed tracking of her work, verification of her registered status, and indemnity cover. She had a structured system to ensure professional compliance and would not proceed until everything was confirmed. Her approach was now overly cautious. As an example, the Registrant submitted, she avoided using the title ‘Dr’ to avoid potential misunderstanding.
207.   The Registrant submitted that she had an embedded system of mentors. She had identified a second supervisor and intended to only accept roles in future where there would be an HCPC-registered supervisor. She would use an appropriate supervision template. The Registrant referred the Panel to her character references. 
208.   The Registrant accepted that dishonest misconduct usually attracts a more restrictive sanction. The Registrant hoped to continue to work with under-represented minorities. She submitted that, if the Panel was to strike her off, there would be an effect on the support for those communities. 
209.   The Registrant submitted that the Panel might find itself able to impose a Suspension Order rather than a Striking Off Order. She submitted that such an order would prevent her practising for a period. It would mark the seriousness of her misconduct and protect the regulatory process. It would also allow a future review panel to assess her fitness to practise.
210.   The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it should consider its powers under Article 29 of the Order. The Panel should have regard to the Sanctions Policy. The Panel must first consider, in accordance with Article 29(4), whether to refer the case to mediation or whether it is appropriate to take no action, despite having found impairment. If neither were an appropriate way to deal with the case, the Legal Assessor advised, the Panel should move on to consider the available sanctions under Article 29(5).
211.   The Legal Assessor advised that, in order to act proportionately, the Panel must, if it decided to impose a sanction, impose the least sanction which met the level of impairment. Therefore, the Panel should consider the sanctions commencing with the least restrictive and moving upward. He advised that the purpose of sanctions was not punishment but protection of public confidence in the profession and to achieve public protection. The Panel must balance the Registrant’s interests with the public interest.
212.   The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to cases in the courts on the sanction for dishonesty and seriousness, including: Simawi v GMC [2020] EWHC 2168, Lusinga v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2017] EWHC 1458 (Admin), Abbas v GMC [2017] EWHC 51, and Hassan v GOC [2013] 1887 (Admin). He reminded the Panel of the earlier reference to Sawati v GMC. 

Panel’s decision
213.   The Panel bore in mind that the decision on any sanction is a matter for its own decision. It took into account its findings at the facts and impairment stages of the hearing. The Panel took into account the parties’ submissions. It heard and accepted the legal advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had careful regard to the Sanctions Policy. 
214.   The Panel considered that it was necessary to make an assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct. It should determine whether there were any particular features of the case which aggravated or mitigated the misconduct. The Panel acknowledged that findings of dishonesty against a professional are a serious matter and also that there is a spectrum of dishonest misconduct. It was for the Panel to engage with the particular findings and decide the particular level of seriousness of the dishonesty.
215.   The Panel therefore considered the factors which aggravated the seriousness of the case. It considered it an aggravating matter that the Medico-Legal Reports had related to vulnerable individuals awaiting immigration decisions in formal legal processes. There had been a risk to their interests involved. The Panel had found that the Registrant had made misrepresentations in her CV with a view to gaining more work for herself. She had abused the system of public trust around regulation of professionals. 
216.  In terms of mitigation, the Panel took into account that the Registrant had apologised for her behaviour. She had expressed full acknowledgement and acceptance of the Panel’s findings. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had represented herself throughout the proceedings and had fully engaged with all the hearing dates. The Panel considered that in her submissions at the sanction stage, the Registrant had demonstrated excellent insight into the impact of her actions upon service users, colleagues, and the wider confidence in her profession. She gave detailed submissions on the preventative mechanisms and systems she has now put in place to prevent future recurrence and the targeted CPD she has completed which was relevant to addressing the misconduct. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s submissions demonstrated her clear and ongoing commitment to her profession and her vocational calling to help people, including voluntary work within the charity sector and supporting people from minoritised backgrounds.
217.   The Panel acknowledged that dishonesty is a serious matter in relation to findings against a professional person, but also that there is said to be a spectrum in relation to dishonest misconduct. The Sanctions Policy gives specific guidance in paragraph 58. 
218.   The Panel considered that, in this case, the Registrant’s dishonest misrepresentations had been utilised on multiple, not single, occasions. The use had continued across 21 reports over a three-year period. The Panel had found that the misrepresentations had arisen from the Registrant’s own actions, but she had initially denied her dishonest conduct.
219.   The Panel also took into account that the events in question had occurred some time ago, not since March 2020. At the time, the Registrant had been at the end of her professional qualification and early into practice. The HCPC had accepted in its submissions that the Registrant may have been confused about her practising status. The dishonesty related to the Registrant’s misrepresentations about her professional title and her past experience. In assessing the seriousness of the dishonesty, the Panel considered that it was high on the spectrum of dishonesty as it was deliberate and sustained over a period of time and also presented a risk of harm to vulnerable service users. However, the Panel considered that there had not been any actual harm identified, nor did it consider it to fall into the categories of dishonesty that may be particularly harmful, such as those involving financial abuse or systematic abuse of service users. Consequently, the Panel considered that, whilst serious, the dishonesty was not at the highest level of the spectrum of dishonesty.
220.   At the impairment stage, the Panel had found that the Registrant’s insight had limitations in respect of her appreciation of the impact on the wider public interest and her dishonesty. At the sanctions stage, the Registrant had provided her further submissions on her insight into these matters. The Panel took into account that the Registrant is not represented in the proceedings. It took a guarded approach to what it found to be detailed and thoughtful further submissions on the Registrant’s insight. The Panel considered that the Registrant had clearly expressed her now-excellent insight into the effects of her misconduct on service users, the profession, and on the wider public interests, but as this insight was recently developed, time would be required for her to demonstrate that this insight has been ongoingly embedded.
221.   The Panel first considered whether the case was suitable for mediation. However, in its view the case was too serious to resolve by mediation. The Panel bore in mind that it had found a risk of repetition and, should the mediation fail, there was no option to refer the case back to another panel. 
222.   The Panel next considered taking no action. It took into account that this would leave the Registrant able to return to unrestricted practice. This would not be sufficient to protect the public, nor would public confidence be thereby maintained. In the Panel’s view, there were no exceptional circumstances which meant that an exceptional course of taking no action might be appropriate. The Panel was of the view that taking no action was insufficient in a case where it had found a risk of repetition because it would not protect the public. 
223.   The Panel next considered a caution order, bearing in mind that a caution can be imposed for between 1 and 5 years and would be a marker on the Register. The Panel took into account the factors in the Sanctions Policy. However, it considered that the conduct in this case, which included dishonest misconduct, was neither isolated, limited, nor relatively minor. Taking into account that a caution order would allow the Registrant to resume practice with the only restriction being a marker on the Register, the Panel decided that this was insufficient to protect the public. 
224.   The Panel moved on to consider a Conditions of Practice Order. It noted that the Sanctions Policy stated this may be appropriate where “the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”. In this case, the Panel was concerned that the Registrant requires time to demonstrate the embedding of her insight. The Panel considered that, whilst there were attitudinal concerns, conditions of practice were not apt to deal with the same and the risk of repetition. The Panel decided against imposing a Conditions of Practice Order.
225.   The Panel therefore went on to consider imposing a Suspension Order. It noted that this may be imposed for up to 1 year and would remove the Registrant from the Register for this period. For the period of the suspension the public would be protected, and suspension also sends a message to the public and to the profession as to the expected standards. 
226.   The Panel noted that paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy states:
“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; and 
·       there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”
227.   The Panel considered that there had been a serious breach of the Standards. However, it found that the Registrant now had excellent insight and, more particularly, had provided insight into the effect on public confidence in the profession in her submissions on sanction at this stage of the hearing. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant needed time to demonstrate that her insight was ongoingly embedded. 
228.   The Panel acknowledged that it had found that there was a risk of repetition in determining impairment. However, this had been before the Panel had the Registrant’s further submissions at the sanction stage of the hearing. The Panel bore in mind that the Registrant had represented herself throughout the proceedings. She had provided extensive and detailed submissions at this stage of the process. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated a willingness to resolve her failings by further development of her insight.
229.   The Panel considered whether it was necessary to go further than imposing a Suspension Order and instead to impose a Striking Off Order. It noted that, according to paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy, “a striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving: … dishonesty … .”
230.   The Panel noted paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy states:
“131. A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
•        lacks insight;
•        continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; 
•        or is unwilling to resolve matters.”
231.   The Panel considered that the Registrant has insight and there was no suggestion that the events which had occurred between 2017 and 2020 had been repeated. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s submission that she is willing to resolve matters and had acknowledged and accepted the Panel’s findings. 
232.   The Panel was of the view that it was central to its decision whether the public would be adequately protected, whether public confidence in the profession would be maintained, and professional standards be upheld if it imposed a Suspension Order, or if no less than a Striking Off Order would be necessary. 
233.   The Panel concluded that it was not necessary to impose the order of last resort because it accepted from the Registrant that she had genuinely taken on board its findings. She had professed an intention and willingness to remediate her practice and described practical steps and processes to enable her to do so. The Panel took into account that the dishonest misconduct had occurred now some years ago and there had been no suggestion that the Registrant had in fact repeated her misconduct since the events. 
234.   The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s engagement and her detailed and careful submissions throughout the hearing process. It concluded that she should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that she is safe to return to practice.
235.   The Panel took into account that, in relation to the serious findings over dishonesty and the Registrant’s unregistered practice, matters of maintaining public confidence and upholding professional standards are also key. The Panel considered that there was a risk of repetition but, having heard the Registrant’s submissions at the sanction stage, it considered it a material but not high risk. The Panel was concerned over the public view of the Registrant’s misconduct. However, it decided that, if the public was aware of the full facts of the case and the Registrant’s submissions and engagement, members of the public would not be concerned if the Panel ended the case with a period of suspension. Likewise, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fellow professionals would be satisfied that professional standards had been upheld. 
236.   The Panel took into account that imposing a period of suspension will have an impact on the Registrant’s ability to practise and is likely to cause her professional and/or financial loss. However, in light of its findings and the need to protect the public and the wider public interests, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s interests were outweighed by the public interest. A period of suspension was a proportionate sanction. 
237.   The Panel next considered the period for which the Suspension Order must be imposed. It bore in mind the seriousness of its findings and considered that there needs to be a suspension for a considerable period. This will serve the purpose of giving time for the Registrant to ongoingly embed her insight and amass evidence that she has done so. It will also protect the public for the period the suspension is in place and mark the seriousness with which the misconduct is viewed. 
238.   The Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate period is 12 months.
239.   Before the Suspension Order expires, it will be reviewed by another panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee. The Registrant will be invited to attend the review. At that review, the next panel will have powers as set out in the relevant provisions of the Health Professions Order 2001 (as amended). 
240.   This Panel cannot bind the next panel, but it will be of assistance for the Registrant to attend the review to update it on her having dealt with this Panel’s findings. The Registrant is at liberty to present whatever she wishes at the review. However, the reviewing panel may be assisted by:
•        A written reflection on this Panel’s findings and impact on public protection, public confidence, and professional standards;
•        Demonstration that the Registrant has kept her professional knowledge and skills up to date;
•        Details of any CPD undertaken;
•        References and testimonials from appropriate persons having knowledge of the Registrant’s character and skills.
241.   The Panel imposes a Suspension Order for 12 months.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Miss Sania Manjlai for a period of 12 months from the date this order comes into effect.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
 
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

Application

1.     Mr Collins applied to the Panel to impose an Interim Order following its imposition of a substantive Suspension Order under Article 29(5). He submitted that during the period allowed to make an appeal, or to dispose of an appeal if made, it would not be appropriate to allow the Registrant to practise without restriction. He asked the Panel to take into account the seriousness of the findings, having found facts proved. He submitted that, in view of the Panel’s findings, an Interim Order was necessary and was otherwise in the public interest. 

2.     The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it may impose any Interim Order at this stage of the proceedings which is necessary to protect the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the Registrant’s own interests. He advised the Panel to have in mind its findings which it had made and its decision as to a substantive Order. 

Decision

3.     The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order 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.  The least restriction which can be imposed was an Interim Suspension Order. A period of 18 months was necessary to cover the time which may be taken to dispose of any appeal.

4.     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 Sania Manjlai