Stephanie J Allen

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.    The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to her registered email address on 10 June 2026 informing her that there would be a review of the Suspension Order on 03 September 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 her contact details up to date with the HCPC.

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 Constantine 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 a mandatory review of the Suspension Order which is due to expire on 16 October 2026.

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 dated 10 June 2026 gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit any written representations or seek an adjournment. 

8.    The Panel had sight of a number of emails sent to the Registrant and was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to engage the Registrant in the hearing. The Panel was aware that the Registrant had responded by email dated 29 August 2026. She made no 
application for an adjournment. 

9.    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 she had voluntarily absented herself and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment in that it would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not engaged in previous hearings.

10.    The Panel was mindful of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so. The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding in the absence of the Registrant as the Suspension Order was due to expire on 16 October 2026. It considered that the public interest in proceeding outweighed any prejudice to the Registrant. 
 
Privacy Application

11.    Ms Constantine on behalf of the HCPC invited the Panel to hear the matter partly in private to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant as the issues in this case concerned some health issues. 

12.    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.

13.    The Panel considered the representations made and determined that it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard partly in private in the interests of justice to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant which should not be in the public domain. It considered that the health matters were not so inextricably linked to the concerns that it would be possible to hold only part of the hearing in private. 

Background

14.    The Registrant is a HCPC registered Speech and Language Therapist (SLT). 

15.    At the material time, the Registrant was employed by North Bristol NHS Trust as a Space Manager Commissioner in the Estates and Facilities Department, a role for which the Registrant did not require HCPC registration. 

16.    On 03 July 2023, the HCPC received a self-referral form from the Registrant in which she notified that, on 23 June 2022, she had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol on 08 June 2022. Prior to submitting the self-referral form, the Registrant had been in contact with the HCPC by email on 06 June and by letter on 27 June 2023, in connection with her drink-driving conviction and had informed the HCPC that she had only become aware very recently that she was required to notify it of her conviction. 

17.    The Registrant’s conviction related to being stopped in the early hours of 08 June 2022 by Police who had observed the Registrant driving erratically. The Registrant was asked to provide a roadside breath test which she failed. The Registrant was arrested and later took a CAMIC breathalyser test at Basingstoke Police Station. The lower of the two readings at the Police Station was 66 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath which exceeded the prescribed limit. The Registrant was charged with a drink driving offence contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 

18.    On 23 June 2023, at Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court, the Registrant pleaded guilty to the drink driving offence and was disqualified from driving for 17 months (which could be reduced by 17 weeks if the Registrant completed a drink driver rehabilitation course by 20 May 2023). The Registrant was fined £461, ordered to pay £85 towards the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) costs and a £46 victim surcharge. The financial amounts were subject to a Collection Order and were directed to be paid by 21 July 2022.

19.    The panel which met on 17 and 18 November 2025 was satisfied based on the Memorandum of Conviction, that Particulars 1 and 2 were proved. It found that misconduct was proven, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, and imposed a 4-month Suspension Order.

20.    The Suspension Order was reviewed on 02 April 2026 when the Registrant was not present. That panel had nothing to satisfy it that the Registrant had addressed the deficiencies sufficiently to avoid the risk of repetition. Accordingly, it determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on both the personal and public component. It considered that a further period of suspension was appropriate to give the Registrant the opportunity to engage should she wish to do so.

21.    That panel indicated that a future panel would be assisted by the following:-

•    ‘attendance (virtually or in person) of the Registrant at the review hearing, 
•    a detailed reflective piece from the Registrant demonstrating her clear understanding of the seriousness of her conviction and its potential impact on other road users, and her clear understanding of the impact of her misconduct on service users, colleagues, her profession and the wider public interest, 
•    character references from any person by whom the Registrant is employed, 
•    evidence of any steps taken to remedy the misconduct including relevant reading, study and training’.

22.    This is the second review of the Suspension Order.

Submissions

23.    Ms Constantine on behalf of the HCPC adopted the skeleton argument in submitting that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC and that her fitness to practise continues to be impaired. 

24.    The HCPC identify that the Registrant has failed to engage with the HCPC process in a material way.

25.    The HCPC submit that the Panel may find that there is enough to satisfy it that an order in the Registrant’s own interests is required, as she informed the HCPC that she is not currently working. The HCPC submit that the Panel can infer that she is not currently fit for work. 

26.    Ms Constantine on behalf of the HCPC submitted that a further extension of the Suspension Order would be appropriate as the Registrant should be afforded the opportunity to be able to engage with the HCPC and the substantive panel requests, namely;

i.    attendance (virtually or in person) of the Registrant at the review hearing, 
ii.    A detailed reflective piece from the Registrant demonstrating her clear understanding of the seriousness of her conviction and its potential impact on other road users, and her clear understanding of the impact of her misconduct on service users, colleagues, her profession and the wider public interest,
iii.    Character references from any person by whom the Registrant is employed
iv.    Evidence of any steps taken to remedy the misconduct including relevant reading, study and training. 

27.    It was submitted that as the HCPC have no information to indicate the registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired, the order should remain in place and be extended so the HCPC continue to fulfil their public protection obligation whilst allowing the Registrant time to prepare for the next review hearing. 

28.    The HCPC submit that the appropriate order would be an extension of the existing Suspension Order for the same reasons as the substantive panel and the previous review panel found. 

29.    Ms Constantine clarified when asked that she did not rely on the Order being in the Registrant’s own interests as that was only relevant to interim orders.

30.    The Panel had sight of the remail from the Registrant dated 29 August 2026.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

31.    The Legal Assessor advised that this was a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’, ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and the ‘Sanctions Policy’. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides the Panel with a power to:

-    extend, or further extend the period for which the order has effect; 
-    make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made; or 
-    replace a suspension order with a conditions of practice order. 

32.    Any order made following an Article 30(1) review only takes effect from the date on which the order under review expires, so the Registrant must continue to comply with the expiring order until then.

33.    The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired. The purpose of the review is to consider:-

•    Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and
•    If so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public.

34.    The key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed. The factors to be taken into account include:

•    the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;
•    the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;
•    the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve their professional knowledge and skills; and
•    whether any other fitness to practice issues have arisen.

35.    The reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed”. Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a ‘persuasive burden’ on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that she has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”. 

36.    The decision reached must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection.

37.    In making proportionate decisions on sanction, the Panel must strike a balance between the competing interests of the Registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public. Therefore, its decision should deal with the concerns raised, but be fair, just and reasonable. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive. The Panel should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected. This means considering the least restrictive sanction available to it first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public.

Decision on Impairment

38.    In reaching its’ decision today the Panel considered all the information before it. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. The Panel was aware that the persuasive burden is upon the Registrant to demonstrate that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel had regard to the decision of the substantive panel and the first reviewing panel. However, it comprehensively reviewed the matter and exercised its own judgment in reaching its’ decision.

39.    The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had sight of the HCPC bundle of 51 pages, the email from the Registrant dated 29 August 2026 and the HCPC skeleton argument.

40.    The Panel first of all considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired looking at both the personal component and the public component. The Panel acknowledged the comments of the panels who heard the substantive matter and the first review.

41.    Due to the lack of engagement of the Registrant and her failure to attend the review hearing, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had failed to discharge the persuasive burden to demonstrate that she had fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”. The Registrant provided nothing to suggest that she has taken steps to address the failings.

42.    The Panel considered that the issues which led to the finding of impairment were attitudinal in nature, and whilst more difficult to remediate, were not impossible to remediate. It was of the view that remedial action had not been taken due to the Registrant’s lack of engagement. There was nothing to suggest that the Registrant had remediated to prevent the risk of repetition and the Registrant had failed to provide any information to suggest she had addressed the issues identified by the previous panels.

43.    The Panel had no information as to whether the Registrant wished to return to practise in the future, or whether the health issues were impacting upon the ability of the Registrant to undertake reflections, remediation or develop insight into her actions.

44.    In considering the risk of repetition the Panel concluded that due to the lack of insight, remediation and engagement there was a high risk of repetition. The Panel considered that driving whilst over the prescribed limit had the potential to place road users and members of the public at a real risk of harm

45.    The Registrant has failed to provide any evidence that she has addressed the original concerns and has not followed the recommendations of the previous panels to participate effectively in the review process and satisfy this Panel that her fitness to practise is no longer impaired. 

46.    The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant may have health concerns which may be preventing her engagement and attendance. However, the Panel could not infer this in the absence of any evidence to support it.  If there is anything preventing the Registrant from engaging, it would be helpful if she could provide evidence of this to the HCPC.

47.    In the absence of any evidence to suggest that the Registrant has remediated, there remains a risk of harm to the public.

48.    It was determined that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

49.    The Panel went on to consider the public component. Due to the identified risk of repetition and there being little evidence of fully developed insight or remediation, there inevitably remains a risk to the public and there is a need to protect the public from risk of harm.

50.    The Panel was concerned that the Registrant had breached the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and had shown a lack of respect for her regulator. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Panel was concerned that she may continue not to comply with her professional obligations to the regulator placing service users at risk of harm.

51.    In considering the public component the Panel found that members of the public would be concerned, and would not have confidence in the profession, or in the regulator, if the Registrant was permitted to return to unrestricted practice at present. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component also.

52.    The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired on both the personal and the public component and it must go on to consider the issue of the appropriate sanction to address the concerns identified.

Decision on Sanction

53.    The Panel looked at the Sanctions Policy considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it was necessary to protect the public. The Panel was aware that the sanction is not a punishment for the Registrant but that it may have a punitive effect. 

54.    The Panel did not seek to repeat the aggravating and mitigating features identified by the panel following the substantive hearing at paragraphs 89 and 90.

55.    The Panel first considered mediation or taking no action and determined that these were not appropriate due to the serious nature of the concerns and the risk of repetition identified. The Panel considered that the risks could not be managed through mediation or taking no action. In addition, these outcomes would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process.

56.    The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to impose a sanction.

57.    The Panel then considered whether a caution order would be appropriate and had regard to paragraphs 146-151 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel concluded that the concerns found proved were serious. The Registrant has not demonstrated any steps to address the concerns or expressed insight into her conduct since the substantive hearing, and the Panel found that there was a risk of repetition, and as a consequence of that there is a risk of harm to the public which would not be effectively managed by a caution order. In addition, public confidence in the profession and its regulation would not be maintained by the imposition of a caution order. For these reasons the Panel concluded that a caution order would not be appropriate.

58.    The Panel went on to consider a conditions of practice order and had regard to paragraphs 152-166 of the Sanctions Policy.

59.    The Panel was mindful that the Registrant had still not demonstrated insight or remediated. The Panel took note of paragraph 154 of the Sanctions Policy which states:-

‘Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious or persistent concerns’.

60.    The Panel concluded that conditions of practice would not be appropriate or proportionate as the Registrant had not engaged with the substantive hearing or review hearings and had not provided any evidence of her commitment to resolve the failings. Accordingly, there was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant would comply with any conditions of practice it could formulate. 

61.    Additionally, the Panel considered that as the failings were not clinical in nature it would be more difficult to formulate conditions to resolve attitudinal concerns. Further, the Panel did not consider that conditions of practice would adequately protect the public.

62.    The Panel next went on to consider a suspension order and referred itself to paragraphs 167-175 of the Sanctions Policy and noted paragraph 169 which states : 

‘A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register’.

63.    The Panel had no evidence of insight, and there was no evidence that the Registrant had started to remediate to mitigate the risk of repetition.

64.    The Panel acknowledged the recent email form the Registrant in which she alluded to her current health concerns. It considered that it was possible at the moment that the Registrant was unable to engage with the HCPC to resolve the issues. Although the Panel did not have any information to suggest that there was an intention to do so in the future should the Registrant feel well enough. 

65.    However, the Panel considered that it was proportionate to allow the Registrant a further opportunity to engage should she wish to do so. It is possible that the Registrant may utilise the time following her recovery to engage with the regulator and remediate to prevent the risk of repetition remaining.

66.    The Panel considered that it may be useful for the Registrant to provide evidence relating to her health concerns and information of whether she intends to return to practise in the future. 

67.    The Panel noted that a striking off order may be made. However, it considered this to be disproportionate at the current time. The Registrant has not yet been suspended for a period of one year, and the Panel was aware that she had reported some health concerns which may be impacting upon her ability to engage.

68.    The Panel concluded that a suspension order was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. Such an order would allow the Registrant an opportunity to engage, develop insight and remediate should she choose to do so, as well as provide evidence of her health conditions should this be preventing her from engaging with the HCPC, to demonstrate her commitment to return to safe and effective practise in the future. A suspension order would also meet the public interest as such an order would give members of the public confidence that the matters in this case have been taken seriously and that the Registrant would not be permitted to return to practice until the issues have been addressed.

69.    The Panel acknowledged that a suspension order would have a detrimental impact on the Registrant’s financial and reputational interests. However, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public and the wider public interest.

70.    The Panel therefore imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months. This order provides a final opportunity to the Registrant to engage with the HCPC and will be reviewed prior to its termination, and the Panel considered that the reviewing panel will be assisted by the following:-

•    Medical evidence, if this is preventing or impacting upon the Registrant’s ability to engage with the panel recommendations;
•    Confirmation of whether the Registrant wishes to return to practise at some point in the future;
•    The Registrant engaging with the HCPC;
•    The Registrant’s attendance at the review hearing;
•    A detailed reflective piece from the Registrant demonstrating her clear understanding of the seriousness of her conviction and its potential impact on other road users, and her clear understanding of the impact of her misconduct on service users, colleagues, her profession and the wider public interest;
•    Character references from any person by whom the Registrant is employed;
•    Evidence of any steps taken to remedy the misconduct including relevant reading, study and training.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ms Stephanie J Allen for a period of 6 months from the expiry of the existing order.    

The Order imposed today will apply from 16 October 2026.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 16 April 2027. 

No notes available

History of Hearings for Stephanie J Allen