Senanu Avadzi

Preliminary Matters:

Case Summary 

1. For the purpose of this hearing the HCPC has submitted a Case Summary [the Case Summary] which the Panel has read together with all the relevant documents that are identified in the Case Summary. The Case Summary is dated 25 February 2026. It is signed by Mr Fergus Doyle. In the course of his submissions to the Panel, Mr Doyle adopted those that are set out in the Case Summary.  

Service 

2.    The Panel has seen the Notice of this hearing dated 18 December 2025, which the HCPC sent to the Registrant’s registered email address. The Notice informed the Registrant of the date and time of this hearing and that it was to be conducted virtually. The Notice informed the Registrant as to how he could engage with this hearing. Delivery of the Notice was confirmed by an electronic communication dated 18 December 2025.      

3.    Mr Doyle submitted that good notice of this hearing had been effected.

4.    Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor the Panel determined that good notice of this hearing had been effected.

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant   

5.    The Registrant is not present. By an email dated 4 March 2026 and addressed to the Hearings Officer, the Registrant stated that he is unable to attend this hearing, as he is currently abroad. He further stated that he could not participate due to the time difference. He stated that he would not be represented and asked that his “written submission” should be considered at the hearing.  Mr Doyle submitted that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. 

6.    Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor the Panel has determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. Its reasons include the following; 

a)    good notice of this hearing has been effected. 

b)    By his email dated 4 March 2026 the Registrant stated that he would not be attending this hearing.

c)    The Panel notes there will be some disadvantage to the Registrant not attending but has balanced this alongside the point that that disadvantage can be mitigated because it has the Registrant’s written submissions and is aware of the material that the Registrant wishes the Panel to consider.  

d)    It is in the public interest that this hearing should proceed as scheduled. The Panel noted that the Notice of this hearing was given more than two months ago. 

e)    The Registrant has waived his right to attend.

Background: 

7.    The Registrant is a Physiotherapist registered with the HCPC and is currently employed by Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. 

8.    On 17 October 2023, the Registrant was served with a Requisition to attend Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court on 21 December 2023 to answer the following charge: 

That you on 03 Aug 2023 at Paddington did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962. 

9.    The Statement of Facts alleged the following: 

On Thursday 3rd August 2023 [the Registrant] travelled from Elephant & Castle station to Paddington station. At about 8:19AM he produced a Disabled Freedom Pass in oystercard format that did not belong to him. He was not entitled to the use of the pass and it was invalid for travel. No valid ticket was shown for being in the compulsory ticket area.

10.    At Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court on 21 December 2023, the Registrant pled guilty to the following offence: 

On 03/08/2023 At Paddington Did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with him a valid ticket.

Contrary to byelaw 17(1) and 23 of the Transport for London Railway Byelaws made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962. 

11.    26 other offences were admitted and taken into consideration and the Registrant was fined £165.00. He was also ordered to pay compensation of £155.85, to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £66.00 and to pay costs of £375.00. A total of £761.85 was to be paid by 18 January 2024. 

12.    On 8 January 2024 the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC. The Registrant confirmed he had been found guilty of an offence at Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court on 22 December 2023, in relation to an incident on 3 August 2023 where he was “found to be travelling with an invalid ticket on the underground.” He described that he “was using my sister’s travel card whilst she was away on holiday in an attempt to save money from my usual commutes”. He confirmed he was fined £165.00 and was required to pay a total amount of £761.85. 

13.    On 6 December 2024, an Investigating Committee Panel determined there was a ‘case to answer’ and referred the allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee. 

The Substantive Hearing on 6 March 2026:

The written submissions of the HCPC

14.    The HCPC’s submissions as to facts, the statutory grounds and impairment to the Registrant’s fitness to practise, as set out in the Case Summary, appear below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the Case Summary have been retained but are shown in brackets. The text is in italics:

Facts and Statutory Grounds 

(11) The HCPC will not call any live evidence at this hearing and will rely on the documentary evidence contained within the bundle. 

(12) The Panel is directed to Rule 10(1)(d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which states the following: 
“where the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based”. 

(13) Before the Panel is a certificate of conviction from South London Magistrates’ Court. The HCPC submits the contents of that document is consistent with the facts as alleged by Particular 1. The Registrant does not appear to dispute that he was convicted. 

(14) Further, the Panel is directed to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations”. Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: “a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence”. 

(15) Having been convicted of an offence by a Court of the United Kingdom, the HCPC submit that this allegation amounts to the statutory ground of conviction. 

Breach of Standards 

(16) The HCPC’s Standards of Conduct and Performance are applicable in this case and the following standard is engaged: 

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

(17) The HCPC’s Proficiency Standards for Physiotherapists are also applicable in this case and the following standards are engaged: 

2.1 Maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct 

2.4 Understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professional Council, including but not limited to, the standards of conduct, performance and ethics.

The HCPC’s written submissions as to Impairment 

(18)  Whether the proven facts amount to impairment of fitness to practise is a matter of judgement for the Panel and the HCPC does not propose to present any separate evidence on this issue. 

(19)  In considering current impairment, the Panel are invited to take into account the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. This highlights that the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public is achieved by the following, all of which are relevant to impairment: 

a. Protecting service users; 
b. Declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour; and 
c. Maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned. 

(20) The Panel must take into account two broad components. The personal component includes the current competence, behaviour, etc. of the Registrant. The key questions are: 

a. Whether the Registrant’s actions are capable of remediation; 
b. Whether the Registrant has taken any remedial action; and 
c. Whether the Registrant’s actions are likely to be repeated. 

(21) An important factor will be the Registrant’s insight, which is concerned with future risk of repetition. 

(22)  Paragraph 28 of the Practice Note on Impairment states that, “there are some cases, including those involving serious attitudinal or behavioural issues, which may be more difficult to remediate or where public confidence in the profession requires a finding of impairment to be made.” 

(23)  In assessing the public component, the Panel must consider the need to protect service users, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession. 

(24)  In the case of Fopma v GMC,1 J Baker dealt with the question of impairment and specifically what is meant by “the reputation of the profession”. 

[39]: “...a failure to find impairment in any given case, whilst warnings as to future conduct can still be issued, is tantamount to an indication on behalf of the profession that conduct of the kind need not have regulatory consequences. If that, depending on the nature of the conduct in question, would itself be an unacceptable conclusion, then that can in any given case be a sufficient basis in itself to justify or indeed compel a conclusion of impairment”. 

(25)  The HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations” also sets out the following: 

“The Panel’s task is to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned, and, if so, whether any sanction needs to be imposed... 

In considering the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence, Panels need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the registrant’s actions bring the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in that profession. In doing so, Panels are entitled to adopt a 'retrospective' approach and consider the conviction as if the registrant was applying for registration with the HCPC.” 

Submissions 

(26) It is acknowledged that the concerns are capable of remediation and that the Registrant has taken remedial action. However, the HCPC submit that the Registrant has not displayed a sufficient level of remediation in order to demonstrate that the risk of repetition has been reduced to an acceptable level. The Registrant continues to state that the incident was isolated but admits to using the card 27 times. It is submitted the allegations are representative of a pattern of behaviour which is attitudinal and behavioural in nature. It is arguable that the only reason it stopped was because the Registrant was caught. It is submitted that the Registrant continues to minimise the gravity of the allegations and has failed to adequately reflect on why he proceeded to engage in such behaviour for a significant number of occasions, other than for financial reasons. As a result, it is submitted that the overarching objectives of public protection and ensuring professional standards are upheld, outweigh the Registrant’s insight. 

(28) In relation to the public component, the allegations are serious, where they involve the repeated use of a Disabled Freedom Pass travel card. The use of this card by someone who is not disabled to essentially avoid a full fare journey is a breach of trust and an abuse on the system. Further, there has been a loss of revenue for the public who has had to bear this expense. The HCPC submit that a finding of impairment is appropriate to properly uphold and declare standards and maintain confidence in the profession. If robust regulatory action were not taken to appropriately mark the seriousness of such behaviour, public confidence in the profession would likely be eroded. A finding of impairment would send a message to the public and the profession that such conduct is not to be tolerated. 

(29) The HCPC therefore submit that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public components. 

The Oral submissions of the HCPC

15.    In his oral submissions to the Panel Mr Doyle adopted and reiterated the submissions that are set out in the Case Summary. He summarised the facts. He said that Particular 1 of the Allegation was proved by the Certificate of Conviction. He reminded the Panel that a conviction was a “statutory ground”. He submitted that Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reference to both the personal and the public components.

The written submissions of the Registrant 

16.    Prior to this hearing the Registrant has submitted a number of documents. These include an undated letter which, subject to redactions is in the following terms; 

Introduction and Background: 

I, Senanu Avadzi, of make this statement in response to the complaint made by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) regarding a travel-related conviction 
I am currently employed as a Rotational Physiotherapist at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, where I have been practicing for a year. Prior to this, I worked at Imperial College Healthcare Trust at St. Mary’s Hospital in Paddington. I hold an MSc in Physiotherapy and a BSc in Sports and Exercise Science. Additionally, I have two years of experience working as a Physiotherapy Assistant, which includes voluntary redeployment to critical care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Response to Conviction Allegation: 

On the 3rd of August 2023, I was found to be traveling on the London Underground without a valid ticket, which ultimately led to a travel-related conviction on the 21st of December 2023. In court, I admitted to using my sister’s travel card to gain free travel from the 18th of July to the 3rd of August, resulting in a total of 27 unauthorized journeys. As a result, I received a fine of £165 and additional court charges, totalling £761.85.

I acknowledge the seriousness of this matter and sincerely apologize for my poor judgment. I fully recognize that my actions were wrong, and that this behaviour does not align with the standards expected of a physiotherapist or a registrant of the HCPC. I want to assure the panel that I have learned a great deal from this experience and am committed to ensuring that this will never happen again. 

I understand the concerns raised by the HCPC regarding my ability to practice. However, I would like to assure the panel that this incident was an isolated event that does not reflect my professional conduct or my commitment to patient care. My work record has been exemplary, and I have always adhered to the highest standards of professional practice.
This experience has been a profound learning opportunity for me in my self-development, and I am committed to ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again. I take full responsibility for my mistakes and have taken proactive measures to address the underlying issues, including seeking mentorship and further reinforcing my understanding of the professional standards required of me.

I value my role as a HCPC registered physiotherapist greatly and remain fully dedicated to upholding the trust placed in me by my patients, colleagues, and the wider community. I hope that the panel will see my actions since the incident as a demonstration of my sincere commitment to personal and professional growth. 
Kind regards, 

17.    The Panel also read a reflective piece from the Registrant which is dated 1 February 2026 and is in the following terms; 

Insights and Reflection 

More than two years after the initial incident, I remain deeply regretful of my actions and acknowledge my flawed judgement. I now fully understand that the Disability Freedom Pass is non-transferable and strictly for the use of individuals with eligible disabilities or impairments. At that time, I failed to consider the seriousness of misusing this service, particularly given that I have two siblings who rely on it daily. I should have recognised the moral, ethical, and legal implications of misusing this travel card in this way. Since the incident, I have taken time to evaluate and reflect on my values and to ensure my decisions are aligned with my core virtues of integrity, fairness, and kindness. 

I would also like to emphasise that this incident was isolated. Prior to this two-week period, I had never used either of my siblings’ Freedom Passes. This lapse in judgement was a one- time occurrence during a period of perceived financial stress, and I take full responsibility for it. I understand that future financial stress may be inevitable; however, I wish to assure members of the panel that I have learned greatly from this experience and will not resort to unethical actions when faced with future pressures. 

I fully understand the gravity of misusing a travel pass intended to support individuals with disabilities. These services exist to ensure equity and access to transport for people who may otherwise face significant barriers. My actions undermined that purpose and disrespected the trust placed in users of the system. 

As a physiotherapist and a member of the allied health professions, I am acutely aware of the importance of integrity, accountability, and respect for systems that serve vulnerable populations. Our profession is built on principles of trust, advocacy, and empowerment for those with impairments. I deeply regret that my actions did not align with these values, and I am sincerely sorry for any negative reflection this may have cast on me personally or professionally. 

I would like to formally apologise to Transport for London (TfL) and to members of the wider public who rely on the services it provides, particularly Freedom Pass holders. I understand that TfL is a publicly funded organisation, supported by fare income and grants from central and local government. My actions resulted in a loss of revenue—funds that are essential for maintaining and improving public transport services, including the provision of free or subsidised travel for vulnerable members of society. 

I also wish to extend my sincere apologies to my family and loved ones. My actions were not in line with the Christian values I was raised with, and I deeply regret the distress this situation has caused them. I live daily with the regret of my conduct and the implications it may have on the reputation of fellow registrants within my profession. Nevertheless, I have ensured that I have learned greatly from this experience. 

I have spent considerable time reflecting on my behaviour during that two-week period and on how I could have handled the situation differently. I am certain that, if given the opportunity to relive that time, I would not have used my sister’s travel card to avoid paying for my own travel. While I cannot undo the past, I am committed to learning from this experience and taking continuous steps toward personal growth and making amends. I understand that trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild, but I believe it is possible through accountability and consistent effort. If given the opportunity to continue practising, I intend to use this experience as a powerful lesson for myself and for others. 

I would like to assure the members of the panel that this period of poor judgement was isolated and that I will never engage in such conduct again. This was the only instance in which I made the grave error of misusing a Freedom Pass, and I will not repeat this behaviour. I have taken concrete steps to learn from this mistake and to make amends by giving back to the community and service users. These steps include volunteering with Age UK as a transport coordinator, engaging in CPD courses focused on ethical behaviour and professional conduct, and increasing my engagement in reflective practice through regular meetings with professional mentors and coaches to promote ethical practice across all areas of my life. 

Lessons Learned 

One of the key lessons I have learned is that there are always consequences when one attempts to cut corners. In my case, I tried to save money during a financially difficult period by misusing a Freedom Pass. This short-term decision has had long-lasting effects, including damage to my reputation, strain on personal and professional relationships, and an impact on my standing within my profession. This experience has been deeply humbling, and I continue to reflect on the consequences of my actions daily. 

Another important lesson is that unethical decisions, even those that appear minor at the time, can have far-reaching repercussions. Initially, I believed that using my sister’s Freedom Pass while she was away was harmless. I now recognise that this was a flawed and irresponsible mindset. TfL relies on fare revenue to fund and reinvest in transport services that the public— particularly vulnerable groups—depend upon. By avoiding payment, I contributed to undermining that system. 

Addressing Concerns About My Fitness to Practise 

I acknowledge that my actions have understandably raised concerns regarding my fitness to practise. However, I firmly believe that I am capable of practising safely, effectively, and professionally. Throughout the more than three years I have been a registered physiotherapist, I have consistently upheld safe and ethical practice, as evidenced by the professional character references submitted in support of my case. 
Although this incident has called my integrity into question, I wish to emphasise that this behaviour is not reflective of my true character. I have always sought to act with professionalism and integrity in clinical settings and remain committed to upholding the standards expected of a healthcare professional. 

I fully accept responsibility for my actions and the consequences they have brought. I do not take this process lightly and have used it as an opportunity to reflect deeply, grow personally and professionally, and implement meaningful change. I am committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct and respectfully ask the panel to consider the steps I have taken, the insight I have gained, and my potential to continue contributing positively to the profession. 

If given the opportunity, I will use this experience not only to guide my future practice but also to support and educate others in making ethical decisions. I am determined to rebuild the trust that has been lost and to demonstrate that I can continue to serve the public safely, ethically, and with integrity. 

Signed: S.Avadzi

Date: 1st February 2026 

18.    In addition to the above, the Registrant has submitted a number of documents.  They include:

a)    Various pieces to demonstrate Insight and reflection.

b)    A Public Health ethics certificate together with learning points. 

c)    Evidence of an attempt to volunteer with TFL and reflections on his voluntary work with Community Connections Transport. 

d)    Numerous supportive character references.

The Panel’s decision on facts, statutory grounds and impairment:

Decision on Facts:

19.    The Panel is aware that the burden of proof rests on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The Panel has taken into account all the submissions that it has received, including the Registrant’s written admissions and explanations. The Panel has seen the memorandum of Conviction dated 21 December 2023 which evidences the fact of the conviction and the penalties imposed. 

20.    The Panel accepts the certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof of the matters that it contains.  

21.    The Panel has determined that the facts as set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation have been proved. 

Decision on statutory Ground:

22.    The Statutory Ground, namely that of the Conviction is also proved. The Panel further determined that the Registrant was in breach of the HCPC’s standards as specified in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Case Summary. 

Decision on Impairment:

23.    The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.  The Panel considered all the oral and written submissions that it has received. The Panel has regard to the two Practice Notes and the legal authority cited in the Case Summary. The Panel noted the guidance contained in the Case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Grant [ 2011] EWHC 927 Admin.  The Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of both the public and the personal components. Its reasons include.

a)    The Registrant admits to having used the card dishonestly on 27 occasions. This amounts to a pattern of serious dishonesty. He has thereby brought his profession into disrepute. This pattern of conduct was behavioural and attitudinal in character. The Panel notes the suggestion in the Case Summary that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct only ceased when and because he was caught.  Whilst the Panel considers that the Registrant has displayed some insight and demonstrated some remediation, neither is complete. The Panel considers that the Registrant still underestimates the gravity of his conduct. To refer to his behaviour as an isolated incident is an inadequate way of referring to the pattern of behaviour which has been found proved. The Panel regrets that the Registrant is unable to reinforce his written submissions by his presence today. The Panel is not satisfied that the risk of repetition can be wholly excluded.  

b)    Moreover, the Registrant’s dishonest conduct over a sustained period of time was a serious abuse of the system and a fraud on the public.  It involved the use of a disability travel card of a type that could be used by those who the Registrant might be expected to treat in his capacity as a physiotherapist. The Panel considers that a finding of impairment on public interest grounds is necessary in order to maintain proper behavioural standards on the part of those professionals who are registered with the HCPC. A failure to find impairment in this case would in the opinion of the Panel erode public trust in the Registrant’s profession and in the HCPC as its regulator. Public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in these particular circumstances.

The HCPC’s written submission on Sanctions

24.    The HCPC’s written submissions on sanction as set out in the Case Summary appear below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the Case Summary have been retained but are shown in brackets. The text is in italics. 

(29) Should a finding of impairment be found, the Panel will further have to consider what sanction, if any, is appropriate. In doing so, the Panel should have regard to the HCPTS “Sanctions Policy”. 

(30) The Panel should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected, considering the least restrictive sanction available first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public. 

(31) The following sanctions are available to the Panel: 

a. Mediation; 
b. No action; 
c. Caution; 
d. Conditions of practice; 
e. Suspension; 
f. Striking off. 

(32) The HCPC will make further submissions on sanction during the hearing, should the matter proceed to that stage. 

The Oral submissions of the HCPC 

25.    Mr Doyle made oral submissions to the Panel. He did not make any specific submissions as to the outcome sought by the HCPC. This he said was a matter for the discretion of the Panel. Mr Doyle did however refer the Panel to the text of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. He identified those parts of the Sanctions Policy which he suggested might be of particular relevance.

Material submitted by the Registrant 

26.    The Panel had regard to all the written material which has been submitted by the Registrant, and which has been identified above. 

Decision on Sanction:

27.    The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It took account of the submissions that it has received and all the written material that has been provided The Panel noted the guidance on Sanctions contained in the Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC and dated 2 March 2026. 

28.    The Panel considered the following to be an Aggravating factor; the Registrant’s conduct was repeated on a number of occasions and over a period of time. It involved the misuse of a travel pass which had been issued to those with a disability. Such a person being one who might look to the Registrant for clinical assistance. 

29.    The Panel considered the following to be a mitigating factor; The Registrant has shown a degree of insight and remediation, which includes his undertaking volunteering work. 

30.    The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality 

31.    The Panel considered the available sanctions set out in the Case Summary in ascending order of restriction  

32.    The Panel concluded that having regard to the gravity of the Allegation, that mediation was not appropriate in a case such as this and to make no order or to impose a caution would be wholly inappropriate. Neither outcome would address the public interest or protect the public from the risk of repetition.

33.    With regard to making a Conditions of Practice Order, the Panel determined that such an order would be inappropriate. The Allegation does not relate to any clinical failings on the part of the Registrant. His dishonest conduct occurred outside his clinical practice. Such conduct could not be addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order. Moreover, such an order would not address the public interest issues that arise in this case. 

34.    The Panel determined that a Suspension Order for a period of 4 months is the appropriate order for it to make. Its reasons are as follows;

a)    This period would enable the Registrant to reflect further on his conduct, in particular, with regard to its impact on the reputation of his profession.

b)    The Registrant’s conduct is in principle remediable and the risk of repetition, whilst it cannot be excluded is relatively small.  

35.    Whilst the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct was serious, it was not irremediable or wholly incompatible with his registration as a physiotherapist. Consequently, the Panel determined that a Striking Off Order would at this stage be disproportionate. 

36.    The Panel considered that a reviewing panel might be assisted by the following; 

a)    written evidence of further reflection by the Registrant as to the impact of his conduct on the reputation of his profession.

b)    An explanation as to how the Registrant would in the future manage relevant risk factors, so as to avoid any repetition of his conduct.

c)    The active engagement by the Registrant with the reviewing panel, to include his virtual presence at the review.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Senanu Avadzi for a period of 4 months, from the date this Order comes into effect.

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

37.    Mr Doyle submitted that an Interim Suspension Order was necessary for the protection of members of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. Mr Doyle informed the Panel that the Notice of Hearing document advised the Registrant that an interim order application could be made. Mr Doyle submitted that the Interim Suspension Order should be for a period of 18 months. This application is made to ensure that the Registrant would be prohibited from practising during the 28-day appeal period, and should there be an appeal, the order would be sufficiently long to cover the time within which such appeal would be determined. 

Decision

38.    Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor the Panel determined that an Interim Order was necessary on both grounds. 

39.    The Panel considered that the imposition of an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate nor proportionate for all the reasons set out in the Panel’s final determination. 

40.    The Panel therefore concluded that it would grant the HCPC’s application for an Interim Suspension Order. The Panel also concluded that the period of that notice should be the maximum that can be imposed as there is no certainty as to how long any appeal process will take. The Panel therefore imposed an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months. 

41.    In imposing an Interim Suspension Order the Panel considered the impact upon the Registrant but the Panel concluded that the professional and financial impact was outweighed by the public interest.

Interim Suspension Order:

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.  

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 Senanu Avadzi