​​Nicola Jane Wootton​

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. At the start of the hearing, Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied to the Panel to sit partly in private. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003. She submitted that there would be reference in the hearing to matters concerning the Registrant’s health and private life which were private life interests and should be protected by privacy.

2. The Registrant said that she would like the hearing to be held partly in private.

3. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that hearings are normally held in public. He referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Conducting hearings in private and that a public hearing complied with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Practice Note, however, recognised that there may be countervailing interests and these included the exceptions to a public hearing, as also set out in Rule 10(1)(a). He advised that it was for the Panel to decide how to balance these interests, and to decide whether to sit wholly in public, wholly in private or partly in private.

4. The Panel considered that references to the Registrant’s own health and her personal domestic life were private life matters which did not need to be disclosed in public session. The Panel decided that it was satisfied that protecting the Registrant’s private life could be appropriately achieved by sitting partly in private. The Panel decided that it would move into private session whenever there was to be mention of the Registrant’s health or personal life.
Background

5. The Registrant is a registered Operating department practitioner. The Registrant is employed by Nottingham University Hospitals Trust and commenced her employment on 30 December 2024.

6. The HCPC’s case was that the Registrant received a caution on 10 August 2025 from Nottinghamshire Police. The offence was for having pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment of Person A and Person B, as outlined in the caution.

7. The HCPC submitted that Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (as amended) (“the Order”) provides that 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 is a ground to support an allegation of impaired fitness to practise.

8. The HCPC further submitted that, on the basis of the available evidence, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. It was submitted that the conduct in the allegation was so serious that a finding of impairment should be made in the wider public interest, even if a finding of impairment was not necessary for public protection.

9. On 11 August 2025 the Registrant emailed the HCPC to inform that she had been cautioned for an offence.

10. The HCPC obtained information from Nottinghamshire Police which included a copy of the caution. The caution stated that on 01 July 2025, the Registrant had engaged in a course of conduct which she had known or ought to have known amounted to harassment of Persons A and B. It stated that the Registrant had made repeated phone calls to the victims’ property and had left them 13 voicemails. The Registrant had then attended the victims’ property, entered their conservatory, confronted Person A and B and accused them of stealing her cat. On the days following, the caution stated, the Registrant had sent several text messages and posted on Facebook an accusation that the victims had stolen and kept the Registrant’s cat.

Decision on Facts

11. At the start of the hearing, upon the Hearings Officer reading the charge, the Registrant admitted that she had been cautioned for the offence as set out in paragraph 1 of the Allegation. The Registrant also admitted the facts in the statement of the caution.

12. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Admissions. He advised the Panel that it may accept an admission and take the admission as proving the facts in paragraph 1. He advised the Panel to retire and consider, in accordance with the Practice Note, whether it was appropriate to accept the admission and whether it found paragraph 1 proved.

13. The Panel took into account that the Registrant was not legally represented. It also took into account that the Registrant had self-referred the matter of the caution to the HCPC, that the caution was clear in its terms and the Registrant had freely admitted it.

14. The Panel decided to accept the Registrant’s admission to paragraph 1 and announced that the facts in paragraph 1 were proved.

15. Ms Bernard-Stevenson opened the HCPC’s case in relation to the Allegation to the Panel.

Decision on Grounds

16. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Order set out that one of the statutory grounds of impairment is:

(iii) 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,

He advised that the parties may accept that the caution in this case satisfied the statutory ground of impairment. The parties agreed that this was the case.

17. The Panel found that the statutory ground in Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Order was made out.

18. The Panel went on to consider whether, as a result of the Registrant’s caution, her fitness to practise as an Operating Department Practitioner (“ODP”) is currently impaired.

19. The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation to the Panel. The Registrant told the Panel that, on the day of her entering the conservatory belonging to Person A and Person B, she had been sent home from work following a fall at work. She said that she had tripped on a wire in theatre and sustained a cut which had required stitching.

20. The Registrant said she had driven into the driveway leading to the home park where she lived, stopped her car adjacent to Person A’s property and gone into the conservatory.

21. The Registrant had written to the HCPC and explained that she had received information from a third party that the Registrant’s cat had been seen in Person A’s property. The Registrant had rescued the cat and had been caring for it, but it had escaped. The Registrant had been telephoning Person A, but neither Person A nor Person B had responded.

22. The Registrant told the Panel about her impression of Person A and her belief that Person A and Person B did have her cat and had later released it elsewhere. The Registrant had recovered the cat, but it had died shortly after as a result of stress.

23. The Registrant said that she had entered the conservatory and been confronted by Person A and Person B who were angry. The Registrant had accepted that she accused them of having ‘stolen’ the cat. The Registrant explained that she had left the conservatory and the Police had later attended the Registrant. She had been required to go to the Police Station and make a statement.

24. The Registrant told the Panel that she had complied with the condition of the caution to attend a 2-hour course with a Police Officer. She said that at first she was ‘negative’ but by the end of the course she had been able to see things from the side of Person A and Person B and was ‘positive’.

25. The Registrant said that she believed that she had deserved the caution. She was very remorseful for her actions. The Registrant explained that the caution had a serious impact on her, remaining on her record for six years. She said that she had lost a ‘bank’ job due to having the caution.

26. The Registrant explained that she was in a dispute with an ex-partner over her former property. She currently works part-time, two days per week in a permanent role, and seeks additional work as available. She explained that she currently lives alone and is struggling financially.

27. The Registrant told the Panel that she is 57 years of age and has never previously been in trouble with the Police. She has not had any issues at work. The Registrant confirmed that she had informed her line managers of the caution. She said that no action had been taken by the employer as a result of the caution.

28. The Registrant produced an email reference from her ‘Band 7’ manager.

29. The Registrant explained that she had been suffering mentally as a result of her predicament, and had sought assistance from her Occupational Health (“OH”) department.

30. The Registrant said that she well understood the impact on the profession of her having received a caution. She accepted that harassment is a serious offence and it might impact how the public viewed ODP’s, in that they might be shocked. The Registrant accepted that her actions involved a course of conduct. The Registrant stated that, if a similar circumstance occurred again, she would ‘just leave it’ and did not want to go there again.

31. The Registrant said that she understood her role as a patient advocate and always put patient safety first.

Submissions

32. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment. She submitted that the Registrant’s actions which had led to the caution are potentially remediable. She submitted that the Registrant’s actions were not deep-seated attitudinal issues.

33. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that, notwithstanding the Registrant’s evidence about her remediation efforts, she had produced no objective, independent evidence of having completed the course with the Police. She had not provided any written reflection, nor called character evidence. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the Registrant’s evidence had largely focussed on the impact of events on herself.

34. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that, being a course of conduct, the matter was not a ‘single’ incident. This, she submitted, suggested a risk of repetition in the future. She acknowledged that the Registrant had given evidence of her difficult personal circumstances, that there would be no repetition and that she had sought help from the OH department.

35. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the events underlying the caution had not occurred in a clinical environment and no patient had been put at risk. She submitted that the Panel must consider, however, the effect on public confidence and the upholding of standards if there was no finding of impairment. Ms Bernard-Stevenson reminded the Panel that the Registrant had accepted in her evidence that members of the public would be shocked to learn of the caution.

36. The Registrant submitted that there would be no repetition of the events. She wished she could ‘turn the clock back’ and she was truly sorry. The Registrant submitted that she understood the need to behave as a professional.

37. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that the decision whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired is a matter for its own judgement, not involving a burden or standard of proof.

38. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS’ Practice Notes, Fitness to Practise Impairment and Conviction and Caution Allegations. He advised the Panel that it should take into account the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned. The Panel could bear in mind the disposal, but this was not a necessary indicator of the level of seriousness.

39. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to consider the risk of the Registrant repeating the conduct which had led to the caution, i.e. the ‘personal’ component of impairment. He advised that the Panel may consider whether the conduct was remediable, what had been done to remediate it and whether it was likely to be repeated.

40. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it must also consider the ‘public’ component of impairment, which incorporated considerations in the overarching objective, relating to public protection, public confidence and declaring and upholding proper professional standards. He referred the Panel to Dame Janet Smith’s formulation from CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin).

41. The Panel carefully considered all the documentation provided and the Registrant’s oral evidence given in the hearing. The Panel took into account the parties’ submissions. It heard and accepted the legal advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel referred to the HCPTS’ Practice Notes, Fitness to Practise Impairment and Conviction and Caution Allegations.

42. The Panel had heard the Registrant give evidence. The Panel considered that the Registrant was candid and genuine in giving her evidence. She answered questions directly and made appropriate concessions. The Panel found the Registrant to be a reliable witness, as to her experience of the events and her reflections upon it.

43. Although the Registrant had not provided independent evidence of her course completion or her reflections on the events, the Panel took into account that she was not legally represented and accepted the Registrant’s evidence. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had completed the required attendance at the course at the Police station. It also accepted that the Registrant had developed insight from attendance at the course. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s expression of remorse as genuinely given.

44. The Panel accepted Ms Bernard-Stevenson’s submission that there had been a course of conduct which lay behind the Registrant’s caution for harassment. However, in the Panel’s view these had been a series of actions linked to a singular circumstance, in the loss of the Registrant’s cat. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s evidence that she had not had any prior Police matters.

45. The Panel was provided with a short email in support of the Registrant from her manager at Nottinghamshire University Hospitals Trust, dated 19 October 2025. This confirmed that the Hospital was aware of the Registrant’s caution, had received no complaints against her and no concerns about her fitness to practise.

46. The Panel noted the Registrant’s evidence that the situation had arisen out of the loss of the Registrant’s cat. The Registrant had been sent home from work due to injury on the day of having entered Person A’s conservatory and had not been receiving any response to her phone calls. The Registrant had also told the Panel about her previous unfortunate domestic relationship experience.

47. The Panel found that this was no excuse at all for the actions carried out by the Registrant. The Panel was clear that harassment is a serious offence, and it acknowledged the distress that must have been caused to Person A and Person B. Nevertheless, the Panel did conclude that this was likely an ‘out of character’ event for the Registrant. It noted in particular the Registrant’s important gaining of insight from her discussions with the Police officer.

48. The Panel accepted that the Registrant is genuinely remorseful for her past actions. It also accepted that the Registrant has insight into the damage that can be caused to the profession if its members engage in such conduct. The Panel concluded that the Registrant is highly unlikely to repeat similar conduct in the future.

49. The Panel concluded that the Registrant is not impaired, taking into account the ‘personal component’ of impairment.

50. The Panel then turned to consider the wider public interest and the limbs of the overarching objective of public protection. The Panel took into account the Convictions and Cautions Allegations Practice Note and in particular the following:

“16. 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. A similar approach should be adopted when considering cautions, as a caution should not have been administered unless the offender has made a clear admission of guilt.

17. 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. “

51. The Panel took into account that harassment is a serious offence. The Practice Note also requires the Panel to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence. In the Panel’s view there was mitigation in the background circumstances of the Registrant herself and also the singular nature of the event.

52. The Panel had accepted that the Registrant had gained insight from her attendance on the Police course, and this was demonstrated in her oral evidence to the Panel. Further, it was relevant that the course of conduct was unrelated to the Registrant’s clinical practice and there was evidence from a reliable source of there being no concerns about her ODP practice.

53. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a finding of impairment on the grounds of protecting the public.

54. Considering whether a finding of impairment was required in order to maintain public confidence, or to declare and uphold proper professional standards, the Panel considered that the events had risked undermining public confidence and lowering standards. However, the Panel again took into account that this was a singular event, with particular attendant circumstances. There was no suggestion of a link to the Registrant’s clinical practice and the Panel accepted that the Registrant was highly unlikely to repeat her past conduct.

55. The Panel considered that members of the public and fellow professionals, if considering the matter, would be fully aware of all the circumstances. In the Panel’s view, it would not undermine public confidence nor impeach standards, in light of the Panel’s conclusion that these events are highly unlikely to be repeated, if there was no finding of impairment in the case.

56. The Panel concluded that it was not necessary in this case to find impairment in the wider public interests of maintaining public confidence and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.

57. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired in relation to the ‘public component’ of impairment.

The Panel’s finding is that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as an ODP is not impaired.

No notes available

History of Hearings for ​​Nicola Jane Wootton​