Trevor Good

: Social worker

: SW25350

: Review Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:13:30 24/03/2017 End: 17:00 24/03/2017

: Health and Care Professions Council, 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Suspended

Allegation

 

During the course of your employment as a Social Worker with Leeds City Council, you:


1. On the 17 September 2013 exceeded your authority and/or demonstrated poor practice and/or judgement, in that you:
a) gave advice to two midwives that Baby A needed to be moved to the neo-natal unit.

b)gave advice to a midwife that;
i) Service User A could have no contact with Baby A; and/or
ii) Service User A could not breastfeed Baby A.


2. Gave the advice set out in paragraph 1 without speaking to the Service Delivery Manager.


3. The matters set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 constitute misconduct and/or lack of competence.


4. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary Matters


Service


1. The Panel considered the service documents together with the submissions of Ms

Younis on behalf of the HCPC. It accepted the advice of the legal assessor.


2. The documents before the Panel indicate, and the Panel has found, that Mr Good was served with the notice of hearing in accordance with the rules.

Proceeding in Absence


3. Ms Younis informed the Panel that Mr Good has not engaged with the HCPC at any stage since the substantive hearing on 29 September 2015 and that there has been no application for an adjournment. She submitted that the Panel should proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Good.
 

4. In reaching its decision The Panel considered the information before it together with the submissions of Ms Younis. It accepted the advice of the legal assessor.

5. The Panel has found that Mr Good has voluntarily absented himself. He has not engaged with the HCPC since the substantive hearing. He has not applied for an adjournment. Furthermore there is nothing to indicate that if this hearing were to be adjourned Mr Good would attend on any subsequent occasion. This is a mandatory review and the Panel has concluded that it is in the public interest that this matter should be heard without delay; it is satisfied that no injustice would arise to Mr Good if the matter were to proceed in his absence. The Panel has therefore determined that the hearing should proceed despite the absence of Mr Good.

Background


6. Mr Good had been employed as a Social Worker by Leeds City Council since 1982.

Since 2003 he had been working in the Emergency Duty Team (“EDT”) as a senior Social Worker. In September 2013 he exceeded his authority and demonstrated poor practice in giving advice to midwives in regard to the birth and care of a child.
Further, he did so without referring to senior management.

 

7. On 29 September 2015 the Panel at the substantive hearing determined that the matters found proved amounted to misconduct and that by reason of Mr Good’s misconduct his fitness to practise was impaired.


8. In regard to sanction the substantive Panel made a Conditions of Practice Order. It was aware that Mr Good had indicated a wish to seek voluntary removal from the register although he had taken no steps to do so. Indeed voluntary removal is usually not available whilst fitness to practise proceedings are in process. In reaching the decision to make a Conditions of Practice Order that Panel was satisfied that Mr Good’s misconduct was capable of remediation and that he had the ability to take appropriate remedial steps.


9. That Panel did consider whether to impose a Suspension Order, but concluded that this would be disproportionate. Furthermore, it would not enable Mr Good to resume
 

practice and to take appropriate remedial steps. That Panel determined that a

Conditions of Practice Order for 18 months would be the appropriate sanction.

 

Decision


Impairment


10. The Panel has determined that Mr Good’s fitness to practise remains impaired.


11. In reaching its decision the Panel considered all the information before it together with the submissions from Ms Younis. It accepted the advice of the legal assessor.

12. Mr Good has not engaged with the HCPC since the substantive hearing. The Panel therefore has no information as to whether he has been employed as a Social Worker, indeed had he been so employed he would have been required by the Conditions of Practice Order to inform the HCPC of the details of such employment.   The Panel has therefore inferred that he has not been so employed. In consequence there is nothing to indicate that he has taken steps to remedy his misconduct or that he has maintained his knowledge and skills.

13. In the absence of any evidence of remediation the Panel cannot be satisfied that there would not be a repetition of Mr Good’s misconduct with a consequent risk to Service Users. The Panel has therefore concluded that Mr Good’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

Sanction


14. The Panel has had regard to the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy. It has approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It has exercised the principle  of  proportionality  at  all  times.  It  has  accepted  the  advice  of  the  legal assessor.

15. The Panel first considered whether to revoke the existing order or to allow it to lapse.

In the absence of any further information from Mr Good this would be wholly inappropriate and insufficient to protect the public. Furthermore, for the same reasons a Caution would also be insufficient.
 

16. The Panel next considered a further Conditions of Practice Order. However, there is nothing to indicate that Mr Good is prepared to remedy his misconduct and that he has maintained his professional knowledge and skills. Furthermore, he has not engaged with the HCPC in regard to this review. The Panel has had in mind that Mr Good has in the past indicated a wish for voluntary erasure. In the light of these matters  the  Panel  cannot  be  satisfied  that  he has  a continuing  commitment  to practice. It has therefore concluded that a further Conditions of Practice Order would be inappropriate.

17. The Panel has therefore determined that now the only appropriate and sufficient sanction is a Suspension order for a period of 6 months. This would give Mr Good a further opportunity to show that he is willing to take appropriate steps to remedy his misconduct and that he has maintained his professional knowledge and skills.

18. The Panel did consider a Striking Off order, but concluded that at this stage this would be disproportionate.

19. A panel reviewing this order would be assisted by:


a) Mr Good’s attendance at the hearing.


b) A personal reflective statement indicating insight into his misconduct and the steps that he would take in similar circumstances.


c) Evidence of maintaining his professional knowledge and skills.

 

e) Up to date testimonials from any organisation where he has undertaken work paid or unpaid.


 

 



 


 



 

Order

Order: The Registrar is directed to replace the existing Conditions of Practice Order with a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months with immediate effect.

The order imposed today will apply from 24 March 2017. This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 24 September 2017.
 

Notes

Order: The Registrar is directed to replace the existing Conditions of Practice Order with a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months with immediate effect.


The order imposed today will apply from 24 March 2017. This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 24 September 2017.

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Trevor Good

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
22/08/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Struck off
24/03/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Suspended
28/09/2015 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice