Hellen Wachepa

Preliminary Matters
Documents 
1.     The Panel had before it:
a)    a substantive review hearing bundle of 129 pages
b)    an addendum bundle of 37 pages
c)     a 12-page skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the HCPC
d)    a 2-page email dated 5 June 2026 from the Registrant’s previous employer at Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust.
2.          On the morning of the hearing the Registrant submitted a 15-page bundle which contained:
a)    a character reference from a friend dated 7 June 2026
b)    a screen shot of confirmation of completion of a duty of candour course
c)     a screen shot of a crime occurrence number relating to an incident on 29 March 2026 at which the Registrant was the victim of a crime
d)    [Retracted]
3.          Separately, the Registrant sent a copy of her email dated 2 April 2024 to her previous employer at Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust attaching her DBS certificate which set out her four convictions.

Application for Hearing Partly in Private

4.          The HCPC applied for those parts of the hearing that relate to the Registrant’s health or personal matters to be heard in private to protect her private and family life. 
5.          It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that references to the Registrant’s health, personal and private life were not so intrinsically linked to the concerns raised as to require the entire hearing to be conducted in private. Therefore, the HCPC invited the Panel to hear only those relevant matters in private. This application was supported by the Registrant. 
6.          The HCPC also applied within its skeleton argument for the private transcripts from the concluding days of the Substantive Hearing to remain private. 
7.          The Panel sought and accepted legal advice. 
8.          The Panel noted that the starting position is that hearings should be administered in public in line with the principle of open justice and to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Panel had the discretion to conduct a hearing wholly or partly in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003. The Panel noted that its discretion could be used in appropriate cases, where it’s in the interests of justice to do so; or where it is done to protect the private life of the Registrant or any other relevant party.
9.          In considering whether the hearing should be held partially in private, the Panel considered guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”. 
10.       The Panel noted that the previous panel had heard the Substantive Hearing partly in private on the basis sought by the HCPC and considered that it would be appropriate, proportionate, and in keeping with the open justice principle for this review to be conducted partially in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant wherever there were references to her health or family life.

Background

11.       The Panel took the following background summary from the Substantive Hearing decision:

1)    At the relevant time, the Registrant was a registered occupational therapist (OT81086) with the HCPC employed by North Yorkshire County Council Health and Adult Services (NYC). The Registrant commenced employment with NYC on 5 September 2022. 

2)   On 14 August 2023, the Registrant was arrested by the police for various offences including driving a vehicle with a level of alcohol in her breath which exceeded the prescribed limit. Driving to appointments was an essential part of her role with NYC.

3)    On 15 August 2023 the Registrant was charged with the following 4 offences all of which relate to an incident on 14 August 2023:

a)    Driving a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol above the legal limit 

b)    Driving without valid insurance 

c)     Driving without a valid licence 

d)    Obstructing a police officer 

4)    The HCPC case is that there was no disclosure of the charges at this time to the Registrant’s employer or to the HCPC. The Registrant subsequently appeared at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court on 11 September 2023 and pleaded guilty to all 4 offences. 

5)    The Registrant’s total sentence handed down by the Court upon conviction comprised the following elements: 

a.     Disqualified from driving for 24 months (reduced by 24 weeks following successful completion of a rehabilitation course by 26 January 2025). 

b. Fine £766 

c. Victim Surcharge £306 

d. Costs £85  

6)    It is the HCPC case that the Registrant was under a duty to inform the HCPC and her employer of the charges against her and her convictions as soon as possible.

7)    On 14 September 2023, the Registrant disclosed to her employer during a supervision session that she had been arrested, charged, convicted and suspended from driving following a drink driving incident. This was approximately 31 days after her initial arrest and charge. 

8)    On 26 September 2023, the HCPC received a self-referral confirming the circumstances surrounding the drink driving incident, the conviction for same and details of the subsequent sentence handed down by the Court. This was 43 days after the Registrant was charged. 

9)    In section 7 of the referral form, the Registrant confirmed by way of an X in the appropriate box, that a conviction or caution certificate was attached. However, the only offence declared at that time was the offence of driving with excess alcohol. 

10) It is the HCPC case that the Registrant’s conduct was dishonest in that she knew that she was required to disclose the charges and convictions to the HCPC and to her employer.

11) Following the referral, the matter was placed before the Investigating Committee on 25 March 2024, who referred this case for resolution before the Conduct and Competence Committee with the Allegation noted above.

The substantive hearing in June and December 2025 

12.       A panel heard the substantive hearing between 16-19 June and 18-19 December 2025. 
13.       The panel heard evidence from the Registrant and from the Registrant’s former employer and manager who was a witness for the HCPC. 
14.       The Panel found all eight of the particulars proved, including dishonesty, and found both the statutory grounds of conviction and misconduct engaged. Impairment was found on both the personal and public components. The Panel imposed a six-month Suspension Order.

The Registrant’s employment at Central London Community Health Trust (“CLCH”)

15.       The Registrant commenced employment with CLCH as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist on 17 April 2024. The Registrant was subsequently promoted to a Band 7 Occupational Therapist role, which she started on 7 April 2025. This was during the regulatory proceedings but prior to the substantive hearing which took place in June and December 2025.
16.       In January 2026 the Registrant resigned from that role with immediate effect. 
Case Updates 

17.       The HCPC in its skeleton argument set out that on 24 April 2026, the Registrant was referred to the HCPC by her previous employer, CLCH, following an internal investigation. CLCH informed the HCPC that the investigation arose after the Trust had received the decision of the Substantive Panel. 
18.       The HCPC set out that the Trust investigated the following allegations – that the Registrant:

·       Deliberately misled CLCH and failed to disclose multiple criminal convictions during the recruitment process;

·       Fraudulently falsified a supporting reference from a member of CLCH staff to support the HCPC investigation

·       Acted dishonestly and did not uphold Trust values; and 

·       That her actions resulted in a loss of trust and confidence in her work and adherence to professional standards. 

19.       The HCPC was informed that the Registrant resigned on 7 January 2026 with immediate effect after being informed about the investigation.
20.       The Trust advised the HCPC that their investigation concluded that there was a case to answer in relation to all four allegations and that had the Registrant not resigned the matter would have proceeded to a formal disciplinary hearing. 
21.       In support of the referral, the Trust provided an investigation report with supporting documents, which was before the Panel.

Submissions to the Panel

Submissions from the HCPC

Consideration of the panel’s decision in December 2025

22.       Mr Smith took the Panel through the background and the decision reached by the previous panel, highlighting areas which the HCPC submitted were significant. Mr Smith drew the Panel’s attention to the previous panel’s findings that the evidence before it indicated attitudinal issues regarding honesty, which had not been fully addressed by the Registrant.
23.       Mr Smith also drew the Panel’s attention to the previous panel’s findings that the Registrant only showed limited insight and that there was limited evidence of remediation. 
24.       Mr Smith referred the Panel to the previous panel’s thought process when deciding between a sanction of suspension or strike off. Mr Smith noted that the panel set out at paragraph 126 of its decision: “although the Registrant’s Misconduct represented a serious breach of the standards of conduct, performance and ethics, at this stage it did not require the Registrant to be struck off the register since there was some evidence that she would take the opportunity of using the term of the suspension to develop further insight and to demonstrate additional remediation.”
25.       Mr Smith also drew the Panel’s attention to paragraph 128 of the panel’s decision in which it set out: “The Panel has considered the possibility of a Striking Off Order. It noted paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a striking off order was a sanction of last resort for “serious, persistent, deliberate and/or reckless acts” involving, for instance, Discrimination. The Panel considered that, although the misconduct found proved was serious, and although there was an element of persistence to it, it has not been repeated with her current employer, to whom full disclosure of the Registrant’s criminality was made.”
26.       The HCPC submitted that these were significant paragraphs in light of new matters which have come to light since the suspension order was imposed in December 2025.

HCPC submissions on current impairment

27.       Mr Smith for the HCPC submitted at the hearing that the Registrant’s Fitness to Practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components and that the evidence before the Panel demonstrates a continuing pattern of dishonesty which persisted during the regulatory proceedings and potentially beyond. 
28.       Mr Smith submitted that this includes new allegations made by CLCH to the HCPC that the Registrant failed to disclose all her convictions to CLCH during the recruitment process, and that she submitted a document to the Substantive Panel purportedly written by a colleague, which it was submitted by the HCPC was neither written, reviewed, nor approved by that colleague. 

Non-disclosure of all the Registrant’s convictions to CLCH

29.        Mr Smith made oral submissions to the Panel, setting out that the evidence available suggests that the Registrant did not disclose all of her convictions to CLCH. 
30.       On behalf of the HCPC it was set out that at the Substantive Hearing, the Registrant submitted a statement of reflections in which she stated that she had disclosed “this matter immediately while seeking my current employment … with my new CRB which was reviewed before commencing employment”. 
31.       It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s statement is not borne out by the evidence before the Panel. Mr Smith referred the Panel to the Registrant’s application form for her Band 7 role at CLCH. In response to a question requiring her to provide details of criminal convictions, the Registrant wrote two words “drink driving”. It was submitted for the HCPC that the fact that the Registrant made no reference to the remaining three convictions, which all had an element of dishonesty, was itself dishonest. 
32.       Mr Smith took the Panel to a letter the Registrant had written to CLCH on 28 January 2026 and invited the Panel to consider the wording used by the Registrant who, it was submitted, sought to argue that she provided sufficient information to CLCH and sought to place blame on CLCH for not discovering the convictions itself. It was argued for the HCPC that this shows that the Registrant does not understand the duty of candour requirements and her duty to inform her employer about her criminal convictions. 
33.       It was submitted that in failing to disclose three of the four convictions on her application form, the Registrant may have sought to minimise the full extent and seriousness of her offending.
34.       It was submitted that this was consistent with the account given by the Registrant’s previous colleague CM. In a letter, CM set out that, during the Registrant’s interview for the role, she disclosed that she had a conviction for drink driving outside working hours, “which resulted in a driving ban and this was why she could not continue working for her previous employer, as she was required to be a driver to effectively carry out her role with them”. Mr Smith submitted that this was also consistent with CLCH’s investigation report which records a further two colleagues who were not aware of any other conviction than that for drink driving. 
35.       Mr Smith noted that the Registrant had provided an email dated 2 April 2024 on the morning of the hearing which showed that she had sent her DBS certificate to CLCH. Mr Smith noted that as this email had been sent on the morning of the hearing, it was not possible to check it with CLCH. However, the HCPC had set out in its skeleton argument that it had made enquiries of CLCH regarding the DBS check completed at the time of the Registrant’s recruitment. CLCH has confirmed that “a DBS check was completed by the Trust at the time of the time of [the Registrant’s] appointment. It was an enhanced one. Recruitment file does not however have a copy of it being brought in during final sign off”. 
36.       It was submitted that the available evidence, including the application form and the account given at interview, indicates that the Registrant did not disclose the full extent of her convictions to CLCH during the recruitment process. 
37.       It was submitted by Mr Smith that this pattern of partial disclosure mirrors the conduct which was the subject of the original findings. 
38.       Mr Smith reminded the Panel that the previous panel noted at paragraph 54 of its decision that the Registrant did not declare the offence of obstructing police to her former employer until a disciplinary investigation meeting, and that her employer was not aware of the remaining offences until the date of the Substantive Hearing. 
39.       It was further highlighted to the Panel that the previous panel noted at paragraph 63 of its decision “that there was a chain of dishonest conduct demonstrated by the Registrant and that it was not a single incident of dishonesty”. Further, that “there was a lack of disclosure throughout the process commencing when the Registrant was first apprehended by the police and subsequently not declaring the charges and convictions, as she should have, despite multiple opportunities to do so” which in the Panel’s view “compounded the seriousness of the concerns”. 
40.       It was submitted by the HCPC that the Registrant’s failure to disclose all her convictions to CLCH during the recruitment process is consistent with an established pattern.

Unauthorised Document

41.       Mr Smith also made submissions on the document purportedly written by a colleague, CM, submitted by the Registrant to the previous panel. 
42.       Mr Smith drew the Panel’s attention to the letter from the Registrant’s colleague, CM, to GA, Team Lead, and HR at CLCH. CM confirms that the Registrant did not disclose that she was subject to HCPC proceedings until June 2025, after the Substantive Hearing had already commenced. At that point the Registrant asked CM for a personal or character reference which she drafted and sent to CM for review. 
43.       Following advice from the Clinical Lead, it was decided that no letter should be written or submitted. CM informed the Registrant of this decision and told her she could provide her contact details to the HCPC if required. CM confirms in her letter that she did not write, issue or submit any document at any stage. WhatsApp screenshots were included which support CM’s account.
44.       CM subsequently provided a further letter in which she reiterated that whilst there had initially been a discussion about providing a personal reference, it was subsequently agreed, following advice from the Clinical Lead, that no letter would be written or submitted. She confirmed that she did not write the document submitted to the Panel, did not review or approve its contents prior to submission and had not authorised its contents prior to submission in her name.
45.       It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that notwithstanding this, a document purportedly written by CM was submitted to the Substantive Panel by the Registrant. 
46.       The Registrant’s account as set out in her response to the CLCH investigation, is that the submission of the document was an error “arising from misunderstanding and poor judgment” rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive, and that she accepted and acted on the advice that no formal reference should be provided. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that this account is difficult to reconcile with the evidence before the Panel. 
47.       Mr Smith took the Panel to the transcripts of the substantive hearing and highlighted the Registrant having taken the panel to the letter, stating that her employer “had sent the letter to say that they had done this” – that is confirmed her honesty – “and they’re happy to support me in any way possible”. Mr Smith also drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that, when asked directly by the Chair of the previous panel about the letter, the Registrant stated “the last hearing, my employer had written a letter in the last – Chinwe, if you remember”. It was submitted by the HCPC that both of these representations were misleading.
48.       It was submitted therefore on behalf of the HCPC that the Substantive Panel had before it a document, purportedly written by the Registrant’s colleague, which was in fact written by the Registrant, attesting to her own honesty and professional conduct and specifically asserting that she had disclosed all of her convictions during the recruitment process when the evidence indicates that this was not the case. Further, that the Registrant had misled the previous panel about the letter during the substantive review hearing itself regarding this letter.

Previous panel’s recommendations

49.       Mr Smith referred the Panel to paragraph 131 of the substantive decision in which the previous panel directed that a reviewing panel would be assisted by the Registrant providing the following evidence:

·       That she has attended a course on the Duty of Candour

·       Further reflections regarding any motivation for her dishonesty and what additional remediation of her misconduct has taken place

·       Up to date references and testimonials speaking not only to her current practice but also to her honesty

50.       Mr Smith noted that the Registrant had that morning sent confirmation of undertaking a course on the duty of candour. He noted that unfortunately there was no date on that confirmation and that it did not include the provider of the course. 
51.       [Redacted]
52.       It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant has not demonstrated, developed or embedded greater insight, nor has she provided any evidence of sustained behavioural change. It was submitted that, conversely, the Panel has before it further evidence that the Registrant willing to mislead people in positions of authority for her own personal gain and that the concerns raised by the previous panel regarding a chain of dishonest conduct have been borne out. In these circumstances, it was submitted that there remains a clear risk of repetition. 
53.       Mr Smith further submitted that the Registrant had previously set out that her actions were a result of panicking or feeling stressed but that no plan or coping mechanisms had been provided to show how the Registrant would deal with panic or stress again in a different way.

Sanction

54.       It was acknowledged on behalf of the HCPC that sanction is entirely a matter for the Panel to decide. 
55.        The Panel was invited to consider whether, considering the evidence, a further period of suspension would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession, or whether the Registrant’s persistent dishonest conduct is such that a striking off order is the necessary and proportionate outcome. 
56.       Mr Smith drew the Panel’s attention to the previous panel’s decision, noting that it considered but ultimately did not impose a striking off order. In reaching that conclusion, the panel highlighted that although the Registrant’s “misconduct found proved was serious and although there was an element of persistence to it, it has not been repeated with her current employer, to whom full disclosure of the Registrant’s criminality was made”. 
 

57.       It was submitted by Mr Smith that this rationale can regrettably no longer stand in light of the evidence before the Panel that the Registrant’s employer was not sufficiently made aware of all four convictions and that the Registrant had misled the panel about a letter purportedly from a colleague but which in reality was written herself. The Panel was invited to consider whether these matters are fundamentally incompatible with ongoing registration. 
Submissions on behalf of the Registrant 
58.       The Registrant made oral submissions. She set out that she feels “regret and remorse for things I did especially losing trust and public confidence and being dishonest.” She explained that she has “been making reasonable changes within the past 6 months, including completing the course and attending counselling every 2 weeks. This has enabled me to be open and transparent. Also the duty of candour course helped me to understand why it is important to be transparent and open and explicitly outline any issues at hand.”
59.       The Registrant further set out: “As I explained in the statement in the past 6 months there have been a lot of changes in my life and I know now never to go back to doing what happened.”
60.       The Registrant addressed the concern about not informing her employer of all of her convictions. She set out: “I accept I did not put all the offences but I did put drink driving and I said we should discuss this further in the interview.” The Registrant further explained that though she did not set this out on the application form, she made attempts to take her DBS form to HR. The Registrant set out that she believes she did not deceive her previous employer. 
61.       With regard to the letter submitted to the previous panel which purported to be from a colleague, the Registrant set out that she had drafted the letter and asked the colleague to amend it as she liked. She explained that before she had a response from the colleague, she was informed by the clinical lead that she should not request a letter. The Registrant set out: “If I wanted to be deceitful I would not have let her know.”
62.       The Registrant asked the Panel to consider not striking her off “due to fact that I have spent the past 6 months reflecting seriously on the matters at hand, I have been able to engage in the community and been able to focus on the honesty aspect of why we ended up here in the first place. I’ve learnt my lesson. I would like to be considered even though I know I have lost public trust and I’ve lost professionals trust… and something that I want to assure you it will never happen again.”
63.       The Registrant further set out that “when it comes to remedial actions I will continue to do this just to ensure things like this don’t happen again. I want to continue to practice to ensure I don’t put anybody at risk or damage any reputation to the profession.”
64.       The Registrant concluded by setting out: “I still continue to be remorseful, I’m sorry and I do apologise for any dishonest behaviour that I’ve demonstrated... I don’t excuse my behaviour.”

Legal Assessor’s Advice 

65.       The Legal Assessor set out that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and that there is a necessity for all Article 30 sanction orders to be reviewed prior to the date on which they expire. 
66.       The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to:

·       Extend the current order

·       Make a different order which could have been made at the time of the original order, which in this case includes a Striking Off Order; or

·       Where the Order under review is a Suspension Order, replace it with a Conditions of Practice Order.

·       Alternatively, the Panel may allow the current order to lapse upon expiry.

67.       The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired. Rather, the purpose of the review is to consider:

1)    Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and 

2)    If so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public. 

68.       The Legal Assessor set out that the key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed and that the reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed” - Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a ‘persuasive burden’ on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”. 
69.       The legal assessor highlighted to the Panel that the factors to consider include:
·       the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;

·       the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;

·       the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve her professional knowledge and skills;

·       whether any other fitness to practise issue have arisen;

·       whether the Registrant has complied with the existing order 

70.       The Panel was reminded that the overarching objective of the HCPC is the protection of the public and that they need to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired through that lens.

Decision

71.       The Panel considered all of the evidence before it, the written and oral submissions made on behalf of the HCPC and the submissions made by the Registrant. 
Fitness to Practice
72.       The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practice remains impaired. 
73.       In considering this, the Panel identified the reasons why the final hearing panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in December 2025, and considered whether all or any of those reasons had been satisfactorily addressed by the Registrant. 
74.       The Panel was mindful of what fitness to practise means – that a registrant has the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively. The Panel was mindful that there are two broad components when considering fitness to practice: 
a.      the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the registrant concerned; and 
b.      the ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.
75.       The Panel noted that the previous finding of impairment was based on misconduct and findings of dishonesty and that the Registrant’s fitness to practice had been found to be impaired on both the personal and public components. 
76.       The Panel was mindful of the factors it could take into account including:
·       the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;
·       the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;
·       the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve her professional knowledge and skills;
·       whether any other fitness to practise issue have arisen;
·       whether the Registrant has complied with the existing order 
77.       The Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remains currently impaired on both components. 
78.       When considering the personal component, the Panel considered that the evidence before it indicates a pattern of dishonesty. The Panel noted that, whilst there has been a reflection of sorts submitted to it by way of a statement and some submissions, and whilst the Registrant has provided evidence of attendance at a duty of candour course [redacted], the Panel was not persuaded that she has really developed her insight to any significant level. 
79.       Considering this, the Panel noted that the Registrant had referred to “misunderstanding” and “not wanting to deceive” which indicates that the Registrant has not fully accepted that she has acted dishonestly. 
80.       The Panel further considered that there was a chain of dishonesty which was particularly concerning. With regard to informing her previous employer about her convictions, the Panel noted that the Registrant had provided an email showing that she had sent her DBS certificate to her previous employer. The Panel also considered that there was a duty on her previous employer to ensure it checked a DBS certificate carefully. However, the Panel considered that there was a clear duty on the Registrant to be clear in setting out her convictions and that the evidence before it indicated that she had not complied with this duty and, at best, had been economical with the truth. The Panel considered that this was particularly serious considering the Registrant had informed the previous panel that her previous employer had been made aware of her convictions. 
81.       The Panel further considered that the remediation that had been undertaken by the Registrant was not as fulsome as the Panel would expect and was of the view that the lack of sufficient insight and remediation indicated that repetition was likely. The Panel considered that there was very little evidence before it to show reflection and insight over the past 6 months. 
82.       With regard to the public component, the Panel noted that there is a particular lack of reflection regarding the implications for the public, her fellow occupational therapists and the profession as a whole. 
83.       The Panel found that the Registrant had not discharged the ‘persuasive burden’ to show that she has addressed the impairment. On that basis, the Panel found that the Registrant remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

Sanction

84.       Having found that the Registrant remains impaired the Panel next considered what sanction to impose. In reaching its decision it was mindful of the HCPC’s Sanctions Guidance and any aggravating and mitigating factors. 
85.       The Panel found that aggravating features included that during the previous hearing, the Registrant had sent a supportive letter that was signed by a colleague, CM, but which the Registrant accepted was not written by CM. The Panel accepted that the letter was drafted at the request of CM but noted that the Registrant had sent this letter to the HCPC despite being informed by her clinical lead that no letter should be sent to the HCPC. The Panel considered that this demonstrates a significant departure from what it would expect especially of a registrant going through a fitness to practice hearing.
86.       The Panel also considered an aggravating feature to be the Registrant’s failure to be clear regarding her convictions to her previous employer despite informing the previous panel that she had been open about this. 
87.       The Panel considered that rather than use the 6 months of suspension to gain insight and undertake remediation, the Registrant had compounded her previous failings. 
88.       The Panel did consider that there were some mitigating factors but considered that these were limited. These included that no clinical or competency concerns had been raised about the Registrant, that the Registrant provided evidence of completing a course on the duty of candour, and that [redacted]. The Panel noted however that very little detail was provided regarding these and that no report had been provided setting out anything that had been learnt or any development achieved. 
89.       The Panel also noted that the Registrant had provided a character reference from a friend. However, the Panel placed limited weight on this as the Panel did not know who the individual was and it did not assist the Panel in considering the specific impairment before it.
90.       Having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Panel considered the possible sanctions in order from the least serious to the most serious. 
91.       It first considered whether it would be appropriate to take no action or to impose a caution order. The Panel considered that either of these options would fail to reflect the seriousness of the findings and the associated risks of harm, would fail to protect the public and fail to maintain public confidence in the profession. 
92.       The Panel next considered whether it would be appropriate to allow the suspension order to expire and to impose conditions of practice. The Panel noted that the concerns about the Registrant do not relate to any clinical concerns but rather to findings of dishonesty and deep seated concerns which are attitudinal in nature. The Panel considered that it would not be practicable to seek to address these concerns by way of conditions of practice and that in any event this would not be appropriate in light of its finding that the Registrant has demonstrated insufficient insight. 
93.       The Panel next considered an extension of the existing Suspension Order. The Panel noted that the Registrant had already had a period of suspension which was an opportunity for her to demonstrate a more advanced level of insight. The Panel considered that the situation is now more serious than that before the previous panel as there is evidence that the Registrant has engaged in further acts of dishonesty. The Panel did not consider that there was evidence before it to suggest that the Registrant would be able to remedy the failings or develop further insight during a further period of suspension. 
94.       The Panel therefore considered whether a strike off order would be appropriate. The Panel carefully considered the guidance provided to it in the Sanctions Policy. 
95.       The Panel noted that striking off is a long-term sanction and will be appropriate for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts. The Panel noted that the guidance sets out that this may include dishonesty. 
96.       The Panel noted that the guidance further sets out that “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. Some examples of such conduct include (this list is not exhaustive), 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 (for example, due to not attempting to engage with any remediation); or • is unwilling to resolve matters.”
97.       The Panel considered that based on the totality of the information before it that a strike off was appropriate in this case based on the serious, persistent dishonesty of the Registrant and on the basis that 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. The Panel placed particular emphasis on the Registrant’s continued lack of insight despite having been suspended for 6 months and her continued repeated misconduct. 
98.       In reaching its decision, the Panel was mindful of the need for the decision to be proportionate, striking a fair balance between preventing the Registrant from being able to ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection. The Panel noted that public protection must be the priority and considered that the decision was proportionate in all the circumstances. 

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Miss Hellen Wachepa from the Register.

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 Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

History of Hearings for Hellen Wachepa