Andrew Edwards

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to his registered email address on 27 March 2026 informing him that there would be a review of the Conditions of Practice Order on 1 May 2026. An email delivery notification has been provided. 

2. The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep his contact details with the HCPC up to date.

3. The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents.
Proceeding in absence 

4. The Panel considered whether it was appropriate and fair to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the representations made by Ms Sampson on behalf of the HCPC.

5. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that today’s hearing was for a mandatory review of a Conditions of Practice Order.

6. The Panel was aware of the need to exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence with the utmost care and caution. The Panel was referred to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and the public interest and that the “fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against medical practitioners is of very real importance”. In that regard, the case made clear that, “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

7. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit any written representations or seek an adjournment. 

8. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to notify the Registrant of today’s hearing, and it was mindful that the Registrant had not responded and had made no application for an adjournment.

9. The Panel was aware of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so. The Panel noted that the Order was due to expire on 4 May 2026, and that both the HCPC and the Hearings Officer had attempted to engage with the Registrant without success. The Registrant had been warned that if he failed to attend the hearing could proceed in his absence. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had health issues, it had nothing to suggest that these were a factor in the Registrant’s non-attendance and lack of engagement. 

10. The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding in the absence of the Registrant as the Order was due to expire on 4 May 2026. It concluded that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had voluntarily absented himself. In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant as it concluded that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment as it would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance.

11. The Panel was satisfied that any prejudice to the Registrant by proceeding in his absence was outweighed by the public interest in the case proceeding, and it was of the view that the Registrant should not be permitted to frustrate the regulatory proceedings through his lack of engagement.

Privacy application

12. Ms Sampson on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to hear the matter in private to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant. 

13. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, which states that as a general rule hearings are to be in public in accordance with the ‘open justice’ principle. However, in certain circumstances it is in the interests of justice for the hearing to take place wholly or partially in private.

14. The Panel considered the representations made and determined that it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard entirely in private in the interests of justice to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant as these should not be in the public domain. The Panel was of the view that the health and personal concerns were so intrinsically linked to the fitness to practise concerns that it would not be practicable to hold only part of the hearing in private.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Andrew Edwards for a period of 6 months on the expiry of the existing Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 4 May 2026.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 4 November 2026.

History of Hearings for Andrew Edwards