Michael Diskin

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing under Rule 6(1) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2004 was sent to the Registrant by email on 20 February 2026.  The notice included the information required by Rule 6 and was sent at least 28 days before the hearing date, as required by Rule 6(2). 

2. The Panel had sight of a confirmation of email delivery, dated 20 February 2026.  The HCPC Certificate of Registration confirmed the Registrant’s email address registered with the HCPC to which notice of the hearing was sent. 

3.The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been served with notice of the hearing in compliance with the requirements of the Rules. 

Proceeding in absence

4. The Registrant was not present at the hearing.  Ms Collins, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.  She referred to email correspondence received by the HCPC from the Registrant, in which the Registrant indicated as follows: 

·       On 1 November 2024: “I distinctly remember informing you I wanted no more contact with you by any means”

·       On 10 July 2025: “In short, I would appreciate the HCPC getting out of my life, and staying out. I have zero respect for them. As I say, the only contact I will ever have with them in the future is to amend my file.”

·       On 22 August 2025:  “I could not care less what you, the HCPC, or anybody else does.  They are so far down my list of priorities I can barely see them.  I wish you all well with your hearing.  I don't know how many times I need to say this. I do not want you to communicate with me by any means.”

5. Ms Collins informed the Panel that the HCPC has received no subsequent correspondence from the Registrant in relation to this hearing. 

6.Ms Collins submitted that it was apparent that the Registrant did not intend to be present today and had voluntarily waived his right to attend.   It was in the public interest for this matter to be dealt with expeditiously and there was no indication that an adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance. 

7.The Panel considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and heard the advice of the Legal Assessor.  The Panel was reminded of its discretion to proceed in absence under Rule 11.  The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in Absence” (August 2025).  The Panel was careful to remember that its discretion to proceed in absence must be exercised with the fairness of the hearing at the forefront of its mind.

8. The Panel noted that the Registrant was given appropriate notice of today’s hearing date.  He was informed of the powers available to the Panel and of his right to attend and be represented.  In the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the HCPC to inform the Registrant of this hearing. The Registrant had given a clear indication that he had no intention to participate in the regulatory process, and since this indication he has not corresponded further with the HCPC.  

9.The Panel was mindful of fairness to the HCPC and its witnesses who were ready and scheduled to give evidence at this hearing.   The Panel noted that the allegations date back to 2024 and further delay would be contrary to the public interest in matters being dealt with expeditiously.

10.The Panel accepted that there would be a disadvantage to the Registrant if the Panel reached a determination of the allegation in his absence.    However, the Panel would independently scrutinise the evidence placed before it by the HCPC and question it where appropriate.

11.The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself from this hearing and has waived his right to attend.  He had not sought an adjournment for any reason.  He had clearly indicated he does not intend to participate in the regulatory process.  The Panel concluded there is no indication that the Registrant would attend on a future date if the case were adjourned today.

12.The Panel decided that the public interest requires that these fitness to practise allegations should be resolved as soon as possible and that it is in the public interest for the hearing to proceed today.

13.The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor that having decided to hear the case in absence, it should ensure that the hearing remained fair.  That would be achieved by the Panel looking for points favourable to the Registrant which are reasonably available on the evidence.  When considering witness evidence, the Panel should take reasonable steps to expose any weaknesses in the HCPC’s case.   It could take into account the information provided by the Registrant within the bundle, subject to giving appropriate weight to the fact that it would not have been given by the Registrant under oath or affirmation or exposed to questioning.  

Hearing in private

14.The HCPC applied for the entire hearing to be heard in private because this case relates to the private life of Person A.   Ms Collins submitted that as the victim of the offence proved to have been committed by the Registrant, Person A should be protected from any risk of identification by virtue of the proceedings being held in public.  Ms Collins submitted that identifying Person A would be an unjustified invasion of her right to privacy which is likely to cause significant distress or harm and is therefore contrary to the interests of justice.

15.The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into consideration the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private.  The Panel was reminded that HCPC hearings are held in public in the interests of open justice and transparency.  There is provision for the Panel to hold part or all of a hearing in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules if the Panel is satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice or for the protecting of the private life of the Registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence, or any patient or client.   In relation to an application for privacy, the Panel should depart from the principle of a public hearing to the least possible extent.

16.The Panel carefully considered the competing factors in reaching its decision.  It was mindful of the importance of the principle of open justice which means that, in general, justice should be administered in public. The Panel also bore in mind that one of the objectives of regulation is to ensure public confidence in the professions the HCPC regulates which is promoted by open justice.  

17.The Panel was mindful that it must establish a compelling reason for deciding that a hearing should be held in private.  The Panel had regard to the fact that the hearings in the Magistrates’ Court would have been held in public but the Panel took into account that the Court is ordinarily open only to those who chose to attend in person and that the Magistrates do not produce a written determination that becomes publicly available and can be downloaded by any member of the public and retained without limit of time.

18.The Panel was mindful that the nature of the evidence in this case details issues that are highly personal and likely distressing to Person A.   The Panel agreed that for members of the public to become aware of the events forming the background to the allegations would represent a significant unwarranted intrusion into the private life of Person A and would likely cause them anxiety and distress.

19.The Panel considered whether any other steps could be taken to achieve the aim of protecting the private life of Person A.   It concluded that there were no workable steps that would achieve this aim other than to hear the entire hearing in private.

20.Therefore, the Panel directed that the whole of the hearing should be heard in private in order to protect the private life of Person A.  

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Michael Diskin from the Register. 

Interim Order

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order (ISO) under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.  
If no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order, the ISO will expire 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 ISO will expire upon the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Michael Diskin