​​Harvey M Lee​

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a service bundle, which contained the notice of hearing, dated 1 April 2026, the Certificate of Registration, confirming the Registrant’s registered email address and a confirmation of delivery receipt. The notice provided information about the time, date and method of joining the hearing.

2. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that notice had been served in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in Absence

3. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He drew the Panel’s attention to emails from the Registrant to the HCPC, dated 3 and 5 February 2026, in which the Registrant indicated that he did not wish to be contacted about the final hearing and did not wish to take further part in the process, in particular due to the length of time that it was taking to resolve matters.

4. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

5. Having had regard to the emails from the Registrant, the Panel considered that the Registrant had conveyed a settled intention not to be any further involved in the process or attend any hearing. The Panel considered that that his absence was voluntary, noting that he had not requested an adjournment. Given the Registrant’s stated intention not to be involved in the process any further, the Panel did not consider that adjourning would serve any useful purpose as the Registrant would be unlikely to attend any future hearing. The Panel did not consider that there would be any undue unfairness by proceeding in his absence. It noted that he had previously engaged with the HCPC, by providing extensive documentation to be considered by the Panel, and completing and signing the HCPC Response to the Notice of Allegation form, dated 20 February 2025. The Panel also considered the wider public interest and considered that it was appropriate to deal with the matter expeditiously, given that the allegations now dated back some five years. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to hear part of the hearing in private

6. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that part of the hearing should be heard in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life. He submitted that there were elements relating to the Registrant’s health and personal circumstances which had been referenced by the Registrant’s employer and the Registrant himself and were likely to arise in the hearing. My Doyle submitted that they were discrete matters and so could be separated within the hearing, but that those matters should be heard in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life.

7. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that any references to the Registrant’s personal life should be heard in private. It was satisfied that such a course was justified in order to protect the Registrant’s private life.
Hearsay application.

8. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, made a hearsay application to adduce the documentary evidence relied upon in support of the HCPC case. He explained that, given the Registrant’s apparent admissions and lack of challenge to the hearsay evidence, the HCPC had not considered it to be proportionate or an appropriate use of resources to seek witness statements in respect of the information to be adduced.

9. My Doyle sought to adduce the following documentation:
• The initial referral form, completed and submitted by the Registrant’s employer, dated 16 June 2021;
• The employer’s report prepared for the HCPC;
• Meeting notes maintained by the Clinical Lead, of meetings between the Registrant and herself between 12 April 2021 and 21 June 2021;
• Notes of a meeting of senior managers, regarding the Registrant as a person in a position of trust, dated 15 June 2021;
• A letter to the Registrant, dated 7 July 2021, summarising a meeting between the Registrant and the Therapy Lead for his employer;
• A letter from the Registrant to his employer (undated), setting out his position and the Registrant’s response for the employer’s disciplinary proceedings, dated March 2021;
• The memorandum of conviction from Cannock Magistrates’ Court, dated 17 February 2021, provided by the Registrant to the HCPC;
• Information provided by the Registrant;
• Two police witness statements, both dated 5 November 2022, regarding their attendance at the Registrant’s home on 5 November 2022; and
• Police report, summarising the evidence collated regarding the offences of 5 November 2022.

10. Mr Doyle submitted that the evidence came from credible and reliable sources, namely Court officials, a solicitor’s firm, police officers and a supportive employer. He further submitted that the hearsay evidence was demonstrably reliable, and where it was not sole and decisive, it was corroborated by the Registrant’s unequivocal admissions as well as his own responses and is factually consistent throughout. Mr Doyle submitted that there was no suggestion of any fabrication and there had not been any challenge from the Registrant to the evidence.

11. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised the panel of the relevant Rules and legislation. She also advised in respect of the relevant case law including Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin) and the factors identified in that case for panels to take into account when assessing whether it would be fair to admit hearsay evidence as follows:
• Whether the statement is the sole or decisive evidence in support of the particular charge;
• The nature and extent of the challenge to the contents of the statement;
• Whether there was any suggestion that the witness had reason to fabricate their allegations;
• The seriousness of the charge, taking account the impact that adverse findings may have on the Registrant’s career;
• Whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of the witness;
• Whether the Regulator had taken reasonable steps to (attempt to) secure the attendance of the witness;
• And whether the Registrant would have had prior notice that the witness statement would be sought to be read.

12. In relation to the initial referral form, employer’s report, meeting notes with the Registrant, notes of meeting about the Registrant and letter to the Registrant, the Panel was satisfied that all of these documents were relevant to particulars 1 and 2. In particular, they provided evidence as to whether the Registrant had attended work and whether he had interactions with patients. The Panel also considered that they provided contemporaneous information, including background information, some of which would be supportive of the Registrant, for example, confirmation that no actual harm had been caused to patients.

13. The Panel considered whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence. The Panel did not consider that the evidence was sole or decisive in respect of charges 1 and 2 as it came from several sources and was supported by the Registrant’s own responses prepared for the employer’s internal disciplinary proceedings. The Panel considered that the hearsay evidence was demonstrably reliable as it came from credible sources and its accuracy and reliability had not been challenged by the Registrant. Furthermore, the Panel considered that as there was no challenge by the Registrant to the accuracy or reliability of the hearsay evidence, it had been reasonable for the HCPC to take the position of not requiring the attendance of witnesses.

14. In relation to the hearsay evidence from the police, the Panel was satisfied that all of these documents were relevant to particulars 3a and 3b. The Panel noted that they supported the memorandum of conviction, which the Registrant himself had provided to the HCPC. The Panel considered that the two police witness statements provided contemporaneous and direct accounts of their attendance at the Registrant’s home following the offences and the police report (MG5) provided an overall summary of all
the police evidence which had been gathered as part of the criminal investigation.

15. The Panel considered whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence. The Panel did not consider that the evidence was sole or decisive in respect of charges 3a and 3b as it was supported by the memorandum of conviction and the Registrant’s own reflections that he had originally provided to the Magistrates’ Court and then to the HCPC. The Panel considered that the hearsay evidence was demonstrably reliable as it came from credible sources and its accuracy and reliability had not been challenged by the Registrant. Furthermore, the Panel considered that as there was no challenge by the Registrant to the accuracy or reliability of the hearsay evidence, it had been reasonable for the HCPC to take the position of not requiring the attendance of the witnesses.
16. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that all the hearsay evidence was relevant and that it would be fair to admit it.

17. The Panel therefore allows Mr Doyle’s application to admit all the hearsay evidence.
Background.

18. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Physiotherapist and was previously employed as a Band 8a Advanced Physiotherapist Practitioner at the Brierley Hill Health and Social Care Centre (the Centre). The Registrant had been employed there since July 2005 and had previously been an Orthopaedic Practitioner.

19. On 16 June 2021, the Registrant’s employer, the Centre, referred the Registrant to the HCPC. Within the referral form, the Therapy Lead – Community MSK, reported the following:
• On 12 April 2021, the Registrant initially disclosed to the employer that he was suffering a depressive episode as he had been a victim of domestic violence by his wife, which he believed was linked to her alcoholism. The Registrant was referred to his GP, Al-Anon and Dudley Talking Therapies. The Trust’s safeguarding team were engaged for advice given the concerns for the welfare of the Registrant’s teenage child.
• On 10 May 2021, the Registrant disclosed to the Community Lead that he had taken cocaine on 8 May 2021, which was given to him by a friend. He took it at home, having locked himself in the garage. Police attended, he was interviewed and was given a formal warning. He was referred onto Atlantic House recovery centre and Narcotics anonymous. The Registrant further disclosed that he had previously had a cocaine habit, but this had stopped 25 years ago. In light of this the Registrant agreed to ad hoc drug testing and self-referred to Staff health and wellbeing.
• The Clinical Lead spoke to the Registrant regarding his fitness to be at work. The Registrant assured the Clinical Lead that he was happiest at work and wanted to see patients. At that point it was agreed that the Registrant could continue clinical care, but to meet every week.
• During the course of the weekly meetings, the Registrant made a number of disclosures, including the following:

i. He reported taking x 2 codeine every night due to a long-term injury and his GP was aware.
ii. He admitted taking cocaine on Wednesday 9 June 2021.
iii. The Registrant was in clinic on the morning of 10 June 2021,seeing patients.
iv. The Registrant had a drug test that afternoon.
v. The Registrant stated that he was feeling low on Wednesday because of his situation.

• In light of the disclosures, on 15 June 2021, the Clinical Lead made the decision to review the notes from the Registrant’s 10 June 2021 clinic, to check if there were any signs of impairment in his decision making ability. The audit highlighted some concerns which were immediately rectified.
• The Registrant also confirmed to the Clinical Lead at that stage, that he had been using cocaine for the last year and had increased frequency from every 4-6 weeks to every week.
• As a result of the information, the decision was made by senior staff to i) place restrictions on all clinical practice from 15 June 2021, ii) follow the substance misuse policy, iii) investigate the conduct, and, iv) support the Registrant with his rehabilitation.

20. A letter was sent to the Registrant by the Clinical Lead on 7 July 2021, in relation to the clinical risk presented by him on 10 June 2021 having consumed cocaine prior to attending work. Of note was the following:
“On the 15 June I conducted an audit of your work from the clinic on the 10 June 2021 and found there were omissions in your patient care and documentation which led me to take the decision that you needed to be restricted from clinical duties and a referral made to the HCPC”.

21. On 5 November 2022, the Registrant called police in relation to an incident involving his wife, where he advised he had smashed her phone and pushed her over in the garden. Police attended the Registrant’s address, and he was arrested for criminal damage and domestic assault, namely battery.

22. On 17 February 2023, at Cannock Magistrates’ Court, the Registrant pleaded guilty to the offences of Assault by beating and Criminal Damage, He was sentenced to a Conditional discharge for a period of 12 months.

Decision on Facts

Admissions

23. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Doyle submitted that the Registrant’s admissions within his signed and dated HCPC Response to the Notice of Allegation form, dated 20 February 2025, should be accepted and allowed to prove the factual allegations without the need to call evidence. He submitted that although the Registrant was not present, he had made clear and unequivocal admissions, which were consistent with his written observations.

24. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Admissions. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions in the HCPC Response to the Notice of Allegation form, were unequivocal; that the Registrant was aware what he was admitting to and understood the potential consequences of making the admissions. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had not sought to caveat any of the admissions and noted that he had both signed and dated the HCPC Response to the Notice of Allegations form. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had made admissions to each of the particulars 1, 2, 3a and 3b, and that they were consistent with his written observations.

25. Accordingly, the Panel found each of the factual particulars proved.

Decision on Grounds

26. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC. It noted that the Registrant, in the HCPC Response to the Notice of Allegation form, accepted that his conduct amounted to misconduct.

27. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In relation to misconduct, she advised the Panel in respect of a number of cases, including Roylance v GMC (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 311. The Legal Assessor advised that for conduct to amount to misconduct, it must fall short of what would be expected in the circumstances and that such a falling short must be serious and fall far below the expected standards. The Legal Assessor advised that the question of whether or not the facts found proved amounted to misconduct as alleged, was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement.

28. The Panel considered particulars 1 and 2 together, as it considered they were so closely linked and formed part of the same incident. They related to having attended work the day after taking cocaine and other medication and, when at work, undertaking treatment of service users. The Panel considered that the conduct was serious. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant had made the conscious decision to take medication and illicit drugs, to go to work the following day and then to treat patients whilst at work. The Panel considered that such behaviour had the potential to place service users at real risk of significant harm, given the risk of impaired judgement. The Panel also considered that such behaviour by registered professionals had the potential to create a reputational risk to the employer and the profession as a whole.

29. The Panel considered particulars 3a and 3b together as it considered that they were part of the same interaction with the Registrant’s wife. The Panel acknowledged that the offences had occurred in the Registrant’s private life and in relation to a relationship breakdown. Nevertheless, the Panel considered that the nature of the offences, namely assault in a domestic context and the deliberate damaging of another’s mobile telephone, was serious and may cause service users concern that a treating practitioner could behave in a violent manner. The Panel also considered that such conduct brings the profession into disrepute.
30. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016 (the Standards). It was of the view that the Registrant had breached the following Standards:

6.1 - You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carer and colleagues as far as possible.
6.2 - You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at an unacceptable risk.
6.3 - You must make changes to how you practise, or stop practising, if your physical or mental health may affect your performance or judgement, or put others at risk for any other reason.
9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

31. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists 2023 (the Proficiency Standards) and was of the view that the Registrant had breached the following:

2.1 - understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times.
2.2 - understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council.
2.7 - be able to exercise a professional duty of care.
3.1 - understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

32. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was so serious as to amount to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

33. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a consequence of his misconduct.

34. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment and submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components. Mr Doyle acknowledged that the Registrant had admitted the particulars and had demonstrated remorse and some remediation within his documentation. However, Mr Doyle submitted that the Registrant had not provided evidence of sufficient remediation to mitigate against the risk of repetition and his insight was incomplete.

35. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment, and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the personal component and the public component.

36. The Panel considered the personal component.

37. Although the Panel was of the view that the misconduct may be considered to be attitudinal in nature, it noted that the Registrant had provided timely evidence in the aftermath, regarding the steps he was taking to address his misconduct, in particular his usage of illicit drugs. As such, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was capable of fully remedying his misconduct.

38. In terms of insight, the Panel considered that the Registrant had some insight into his actions. It considered that he had demonstrated significant and genuine remorse into his behaviour as well as an understanding that his actions had been unacceptable. Nevertheless, the Panel considered that the Registrant had not fully explored or reflected upon the potential impact of his actions on the safety of service users, or the reputational damage to the profession, as a result of him attending work the day after taking illicit drugs and treating service users. It did not appear to the Panel that the Registrant had recognised the potential risk to service users in that his judgement may have been affected by having taken drugs or by not being sufficiently refreshed as a result of taking the drugs.

39. In addition, the Panel considered that there had been some minimisation of the misconduct by the Registrant. In respect of his attendance at work, the Panel noted that the Registrant had maintained that the effects of the drugs would have worn off by the time he saw patients, as opposed to recognising the potential risk of harm to service users. In respect of the criminal offences, the Panel noted that the Registrant had sought to explain his behaviour in the context of the domestic situation in which he had found himself.

40. In terms of whether the Registrant had fully remedied his misconduct, the Panel acknowledged that he had taken significant practical steps to address his misconduct. In particular, he had:
• admitted his behaviour early on, both to his employer and the police;
• made timely admissions to the HCPC regarding the facts and that they amounted to misconduct;
• attended relevant courses with a view to addressing his misconduct; and
• engaged with the HCPC proceedings until such a time when he became discouraged about the length of time it was taking to resolve the case.

41. However, since the Registrant had now disengaged from the HCPC proceedings, the Panel was mindful that it had no up to date evidence to support the Registrant’s position that he was successfully managing his admitted dependency on illicit drugs and was no longer taking illicit drugs. The Panel had no independent evidence to corroborate that he was successfully managing his drug dependency or of the strategies he has in place or the support he is accessing in order to fully remedy his misconduct. Furthermore, the Panel noted the Registrant’s email of 5 February 2026, in which he had described that he was ‘really suffering at the moment and these last correspondences [about the upcoming hearing] have severely affected my mental health’.

42. The Panel did not consider that it had sufficient information to satisfy it that the Registrant (a) understood the potential serious implications of his misconduct; (b) whether he currently had effective strategies in place to prevent a recurrence; and (c) what his decision-making process would be if faced with similar challenging circumstances in the future. In the absence of such information, the Panel was not satisfied that the risk of repetition was sufficiently reduced. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

43. The Panel considered the public component. In doing so, it had regard to paragraph 34 of the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment as follows:

34 - The key question to be answered here is, given the nature of the allegation and the facts found proved, would public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment?

44. The Panel considered that public confidence would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made in this case, given the nature and seriousness of the facts found proved; the ongoing risk of repetition and the reputational damage to the profession. The Panel also considered that a finding of impairment was required in order to uphold professional standards and that to do otherwise would send the message that serious conduct of this nature would not have regulatory consequences. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component.

45. In all the circumstances, in the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

Resumption of part heard case (25 June 2026)

46. At the close of 21 May 2026, the Panel ran out of time to complete the case and so adjourned part heard. It had made its decisions on grounds and impairment, but had not announced them as there had been insufficient time to complete the written determination.

47. At the resuming date of 25 June 2026, the Registrant did not attend, so the Panel considered the preliminary matters of whether or not service had been effected in accordance with the Rules, and if satisfied that it had been, whether or not it should continue with the resumed hearing in his absence.

Service

48. In respect of service, the Panel was provided with a service bundle, which contained the notice of hearing, dated 29 May 2026, the Certificate of Registration, confirming the Registrant’s registered email address and a confirmation of delivery receipt. The notice provided information about the time, date and method of joining the hearing.

49. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that notice had been served in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in absence

50. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He again drew the Panel’s attention to the previous emails from the Registrant to the HCPC, dated 3 and 5 February 2026, in which the Registrant indicated that he did not wish to be contacted about the final hearing and did not wish to take further part in the process. Mr Doyle confirmed that a new notice of hearing had been sent to the Registrant but there had been no further contact from him. Mr Doyle informed the Panel that there had been no request for an adjournment and his submission was that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend.

51. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

52. The Panel considered that nothing had changed since the 21 May 2026, when the case had to be adjourned part heard due to lack of time to complete it. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was following his settled intention not to be any further involved in the process or attend any hearing. The Panel considered that that his absence was voluntary, noting that he had not requested an adjournment and it did not consider that adjourning would serve any useful purpose as the Registrant would be unlikely to attend any future hearing. The Panel did not consider that there would be any undue unfairness by proceeding in his absence, noting that the Registrant had not attended the first part of the hearing. The Panel was satisfied that it was in the wider public interest to conclude the hearing expeditiously. Accordingly, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Decision on Sanction

53. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether it was impaired to a degree which required actions to be taken on his registration. The Panel took account of the submissions of Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC and had regard to all the material previously before it.

54. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and exercised its independent judgement. It had regard to the HCPTS Sanctions Policy (the Policy) and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel understood that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the public interest which includes upholding standards within the profession, as well as maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.

55. The Panel identified the mitigating and aggravating factors, and evaluated them in respect of each sanction under consideration, in accordance with the case of O v NMC [2015] EWHC 2949 (Admin).
56. The Panel considered the following to be the relevant aggravating factors:
• The Registrant’s actions had the potential to expose patients to a risk of harm through impaired judgement taking by attending work the day after taking cocaine;
• The Registrant’s convictions for common assault and criminal damage were in a domestic context.

57. The Panel considered the following to be the relevant mitigating factors:
• The Registrant pleaded guilty to the criminal matters and admitted all of the regulatory factual allegations’
• The Registrant has shown a degree of insight, albeit it is not complete in respect of the risk of harm he could have exposed patients to by his attendance at work the day after taking cocaine;
• The Registrant has shown remorse for his actions and has taken some remedial steps.

58. The Panel first considered whether a sanction was necessary, and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired to a degree which required action to be taken on his registration. The Panel was of the view that the case was too serious to take no action, given the findings which in respect of misconduct and impairment it had previously made. It also noted that the common assault which the Registrant pleaded guilty to was an offence of violence, which the HCPTS Practice Note identified as a serious case likely to require a more restrictive sanction. The Panel also bore in mind the Registrant’s current non-engagement with the process, meaning it had no up to date information regarding the Registrant’s health or of any ongoing remedial steps to address his issues. The Panel concluded that some form of sanction was necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

59. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Caution Order. It had regard to paragraph 147 of the Policy which states:
A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

60. The Panel did not consider that this was a case where the issues had been isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature. On the contrary, the Panel considered that the misconduct encompassed two elements: firstly, there was the risk to patients as a result of attending work the day after taking cocaine and secondly there were the offences of violence and criminal damage in a domestic context. In addition, whilst the Panel had identified that the Registrant had demonstrated a degree of insight, it had nevertheless considered that there was a deficiency in his understanding of the potential risk to patients by attending work the day after taking cocaine. Furthermore, whilst the Registrant had taken some remedial steps to address his issues, there was an absence of up to date information to assist the Panel with the Registrant’s current state of health and whether there was an ongoing risk as a result. Accordingly, the Panel was not satisfied that a Caution Order was the appropriate, sufficient or proportionate response.

61. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. It had regard to the Policy, in particular paragraph 153 of the Policy, which sets out the factors which may indicate when a Conditions of Practice Order is appropriate:

A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
• the registrant has insight;
• the concerns are capable of being remedied or managed;
• there are no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and
• a panel is satisfied that a registrant may continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm.

62. The Panel noted its earlier findings to the effect that the Registrant’s misconduct, although to some extent attitudinal in nature, was capable of remediation. Having regard to paragraph 153, the Panel also considered that the Registrant had insight, albeit not complete; that the concerns would be capable of remediation or being managed; and there were no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the Registrant from remediating.

63. However, the Panel also had regard to paragraph 154, which references a Registrant’s engagement with the process. It states:

"Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised, and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice or unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practice process."

64. The Panel bore in mind the Registrant’s consistently stated intention not to engage with the process and absence of any communication from him since the hearing was adjourned part heard. The consequence of this was that the Panel had no up to date information about the Registrant’s current health or personal circumstances. It could also not be confident that the Registrant would be willing or able to abide by conditions. In light of this, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order was the appropriate or proportionate response.

65. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. In particular, the Panel had regard to paragraph 170 of the Policy and the factors which may indicate that a Suspension Order is appropriate:
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; or
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings, particularly in cases where the registrant has demonstrated they have begun to do so or given a credible explanation for how they will do so.

66. The Panel, bore in mind that it had previously identified that the Registrant had insight, albeit incomplete. In addition, whilst the Panel had no up to date information from the Registrant, it noted that he had practised for a time since the misconduct came to light and there was no evidence that the misconduct had been repeated. Furthermore, the Panel considered that there was evidence to suggest that the Registrant would be likely to be able to remedy his misconduct if he chose to do so, as he had previously taken steps to address it. Although there was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant was currently taking steps to remedy his misconduct, the Panel did not consider that he would not be capable of remedying it if he chose to do so.

67. The Panel took account of the guidance at paragraph 170 of the Policy, telling Panels who were considering Suspension Orders to consider: whether the conduct found proven indicates behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

68. The Panel did not consider that this was such a case. It acknowledged that one of the offences to which the Registrant had pleaded guilty to was an offence of violence, and accordingly was classed as a serious offence by the Policy. However, the Panel considered that the offending had occurred in a discrete set of circumstances, and the Registrant had admitted the common assault immediately and had been dealt with by way of a discharge. Therefore, whilst serious, in the Panel’s judgement, it was not an offence either individually or together with the other misconduct found, which was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration, such that a Striking-Off Order was required.

69. The Panel was satisfied that a Suspension Order would protect the public for the period it was in place, and would be reviewed approaching its expiry to determine whether any further steps were required tin respect of protecting the public. The Panel was also satisfied that a Suspension Order would appropriately address the public interest considerations. It considered that it would meet the expectations of the public as to the steps a regulator should take in respect of a registered professional who had behaved in this way.

70. The Panel considered that the Suspension Order should be for a period of 12 months. It considered that this length was required to meet the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel also considered that it was a period which would give the Registrant the opportunity, should he choose to take it, to complete his development of insight and to fully remediate his misconduct.

71. Accordingly, the Panel determined to impose a Suspension order for a period of 12 months.

The Registrar is directed to suspend Mr Harvey Lee from the Register for a period of 12 months on the date that this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

72. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for an Interim Order of Suspension for 18 months to cover the appeal period before the substantive Suspension Order comes into effect. He directed the Panel’s attention to the notice of hearing, in which the prospect of applying for an Interim Order at the end of the hearing was set out. Mr Doyle submitted that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise in the public interest to cover the duration of the appeal period, given the nature and seriousness of the findings.

Decision

73. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the Practice Note on Interim Orders.

74. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been given notice within the notice of hearing of the HCPC’s intention to apply for an Interim Order at the end of the hearing in the event that a restrictive sanction was imposed. It was further satisfied that it was appropriate and fair to hear and decide the application in his absence for the same reasons it had decided to proceed with the final hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

75. The Panel considered whether an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and concluded that one was necessary. The Panel has found misconduct and current impaired fitness to practise on both the personal and public components. The Panel had also found that in the absence of up to date information about the Registrant’s current health and personal circumstances, there was an ongoing risk to the public. The Panel, therefore, concluded that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public.

76. The Panel also considered the wider public interest. The Panel concluded that, having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, and having imposed a Suspension Order to protect the public and wider public interest from ongoing risk, the public would be shocked and troubled if the Registrant were permitted to practise during the appeal period. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Order was required to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

77. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an Interim Order is necessary to protect the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

78. The Panel considered an Interim Conditions of Practice Order, but concluded that the case could not be dealt with by way of conditions for the same reasons as set out in the substantive hearing.

79. In all the circumstances the Panel determined to make an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months. In deciding to impose this length, it took account of the fact that if the Registrant were to appeal, that process may take a considerable period of time.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for ​​Harvey M Lee​