Peter Dromgoole

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a copy of a notice sent to the Registrant by email at his registered email address (and later his postal address) setting out details of today’s substantive review hearing dated 30 January 2026. The notice of hearing specified the date, time, and purpose of today’s hearing enclosing all of the necessary ancillary papers.

2. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing was sent by email to the Registrant on 30 January 2026, which is more than 28 days in advance of today’s review. The Panel was provided with a copy of the HCPC Certificate of Registration, which confirmed the Registrant’s email address registered with the HCPC dated 30 January 2026.

3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

4. The Panel was satisfied that good service of the notice of hearing had been effected in accordance with Rule 3 and 13 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (the Rules).

Application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant

5. Ms Sampson submitted that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of hearing on the Registrant. Therefore, the Panel should exercise its discretion to proceed with the substantive review hearing in the absence of the Registrant. Ms Sampson referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant.

6. Ms Sampson reminded the Panel that the expiry date for this Order occurs on 7 March 2026. If this matter were not to be reviewed today, it would not be possible to comply with the Notice provisions (as set out above). In those circumstances, there was a real risk that the Order would expire. That would have the effect that the Registrant would then be free to resume professional practice without any restriction. That would not be in the interests of the public.

7. Ms Sampson pointed out the correspondence received from the Registrant’s mother explaining that the Registrant remained under medical care and was unfit to work for health reasons. The Panel was entitled to conclude that all reasonable efforts to service Notice of today’s Substantive Review had been taken in accordance with the Rules.

8. Ms Sampson submitted that there has been no application to adjourn, nor any indication that the Registrant would be willing to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, an adjournment is unlikely to result in the Registrant’s future attendance on an alternative date.

9. In conclusion, Ms Sampson submitted that this is a mandatory review of the current Order and that it is in both the Registrant’s interests and in the public interest for a review of the Order to take place as scheduled so that the matter can be heard and concluded expeditiously. She submitted that it would be fair and proportionate to hear this matter in the absence of the Registrant and there is an over-riding public interest in proceeding with this matter today.

10. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to Rule 11 and to the HCPTS Practice Note Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant, and to the relevant guidance from the cases of R v Jones (Anthony) [2004] 1 AC 1HL and General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.

11. The Panel noted that the Registrant was given the required notice of today’s hearing date. He was informed of the powers available to the Panel at this hearing. He was also informed of his right to attend the hearing and/or be represented. In the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made by the HCPC to inform the Registrant of this hearing.

12. The Panel noted that the Registrant has not sought an adjournment. The Panel was satisfied that, given the Registrant’s health background, an adjournment was unlikely to result in the Registrant’s attendance on a future occasion.

13. The Panel was mindful that there would be some disadvantage to the Registrant if the review hearing proceeds in his absence, however, this must be balanced against the public interest in proceeding with this mandatory, statutory review of an existing Conditions of Practice Order.

14. The Panel therefore decided that it was fair and in the public interest to proceed with this substantive review hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

Application for the Hearing to be conducted in private

15. Ms Sampson, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for this matter to be heard entirely in private as it relates to issues entirely taken up with the Registrant’s health. Ms Sampson referred the Panel to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Health Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003) and submitted that while the Rules provide that fitness to practise proceedings should ordinarily be held in public, the Panel has the discretion to exclude the press or the public from all or part of a hearing 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.

16. Ms Sampson referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note Conducting Hearings in Private which expanded on the Rules by reference to the open justice principle and the Panel’s discretion to conduct part or all of the hearing in private, in appropriate cases including cases which involved the Registrant’s health and private life. Proceedings should be held in public, unless to do otherwise is necessary in the interests of justice or to protect the Registrant’s Article 8 rights for respect to be accorded to his private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

17. Ms Sampson submitted that it would not be practical for the hearing to be conducted partly in private and partly in public as the Registrant’s health is central to the matters under review. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Panel to exercise its discretion and to decide that the entirety of this hearing should be considered in private to protect the Registrant’s private life. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to Rule 10(1)(a) and the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private.

18. The Panel determined that as the material within the bundle is sensitive and is linked to the patient’s health, it engages the Registrant’s Article 8 rights to respect for his private life. It was not practical, the Panel concluded, to separate out any parts of the hearing that might be in public without a substantial risk of damaging those rights. Accordingly, the Panel decided that the entire hearing must be held in private. The Panel concluded that the interests of justice outweighed the general public interest in holding this hearing in public.

Decision

19. The Panel decided that in all of the circumstances, the proportionate and appropriate sanction was to extend the current Suspension Order from the date when the current Order expires on 7 March 2026.

20. The Panel concluded that 12 months is the appropriate and proportionate period to impose. This will allow the Registrant a further opportunity to address the issues relating to his Health and, if possible, to engage with the HCPC regarding progress.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Peter Dromgoole for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 7 March 2026. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 7 March 2027.

History of Hearings for Peter Dromgoole