Mr James-Moni Tayamoi

: Social worker

: SW96799

: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 18/04/2017 End: 17:00 21/04/2017

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

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Suspended

Allegation

Whilst registered with the Health and Care Professions Council as a Social Worker, you:

1. Between 18 July 2012 and 13 August 2014, at Southampton City Council:

a. Used Southampton City Council's credit card to pay for fuel for your own car:

i. on or around 22 December 2013; and

ii. on or around 14 January 2014.

2. Between 18 July 2012 and 13 August 2014, at Southampton City Council:

a. on or around 13 August 2014:

i. breached professional boundaries, in that you gave chocolates to Service User A's mother;

and

ii. did not record the matters described in Particular 2(a)(i) as a gift on Southampton City Council's register of gifts (the "Paris System").

3. In August 2014, did not declare relevant information relating to your employment with Southampton City Council;

a. to the Borough of Poole in your job application for the post of Social Worker prior to August 201S; and

b. during your employment at the Borough of Poole between February 2015 and 5 November 201S.

4. The matters referred to at Particulars 1, 2, and 3 are dishonest.

5. The matters referred to at Particulars 1 - 4 amount to misconduct.

6. By reason of your misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary matters:

Application to Amend the Allegation

1. The HCPC made an application to amend the particulars of the allegation. The Panel considered whether there was any unfairness or prejudice to Mr Tayamoi by reason of the proposed amendments, which serve to clarify the HCPC’s case in accordance with the evidence. The Panel considered that there is no prejudice to Mr Tayamoi in this application and he has not objected to it. The Panel granted the amendment application in order to clarify the HCPC’s case.

Disciplinary investigation

2. The Panel is aware that disciplinary investigations took place. However the Panel has taken care not to be influenced by the conclusion of those investigations. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that findings made by another panel or another person are not admissible in these proceedings and must not influence this Panel’s decision.

Advice on Evidence

3. The Panel received and accepted advice from the Legal Assessor that hearsay evidence is admissible in these proceedings under Rule 10 (1)(b) and (c) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003. However the Panel has approached the hearsay evidence with caution, because it has not been tested by cross-examination. The Panel has carefully considered what weight to afford to the hearsay evidence before it.

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that the burden of proof is upon the HCPC on the civil ‘balance of probabilities’, in relation to findings of fact. Whether any proved facts in this case amount to the statutory ground of misconduct and the issue of current impairment, are not matters which need to be ‘proved’. They are matters of judgement for the Panel.

5. Article 22 (3) of the 2001 Order states: This article is not prevented from applying because the allegation is based on a matter alleged to have occurred outside the United Kingdom or at a time when the person against whom the allegation is made was not registered. This was borne in mind by the Panel when considering particulars 3(a) and 3(b) which are alleged to have occurred prior to Mr Tayamoi’s HCPC registration as a Social Worker.

Background to particulars 1 and 2:


6. The Registrant, Mr Tayamoi, was employed by Southampton City Council (SCC) from about July 2012 as a part-time contact supervisor, and subsequently as a Social Work assistant from March 2013. Mr Tayamoi qualified as a Social Worker in November 2013 and was registered as a Social Worker with the HCPC on 19 December 2013.

7. On 20 December 2013, Mr Tayamoi signed out a SCC fuel card to enable him to fill up a hire car that he was using later that day for Council business. Mr Tayamoi retained the fuel card until 21 January 2014, when he returned the card to the Finance Team with four fuel receipts. On 22 January 2014, Sharon Burridge (Directorate Business Support Officer at SCC) examined these receipts and identified that on two occasions diesel had been purchased and on two occasions unleaded fuel had been purchased. The unleaded fuel receipts were dated 22 December 2013 for £47.25 and 14 January 2014, for £40.84. Although Mr Tayamoi had purchased diesel and unleaded fuel, the hire car provided by SCC required diesel fuel only. Ms Burridge arranged a meeting with Mr Tayamoi at 4pm on 22 January 2014. At that meeting Mr Tayamoi accepted that he had used the SCC fuel card on two occasions to put fuel into his own car. Mr Tayamoi offered to repay the cost of this fuel. When Ms Burridge arrived at work on the following day, she found an envelope containing money from Mr Tayamoi, to the value of the unauthorised fuel expenditure.

8. Mrs Kehoe, who was employed by SCC as the Interim Service Manager for the Protection and Court Team (PACT), carried out an investigation and interviewed Mr Tayamoi on 31 January 2014. During the investigation meeting Mr Tayamoi explained that he had used SCC fuel cards on several occasions. He confirmed his use of the SCC card to put fuel into his own car was a deliberate act. He stated that he had financial difficulties and was ashamed of his behaviour. He said he had previously returned the cards on the next day, but on the occasion in question he forgot to do so. He had intended to return the fuel card to Ms Burridge and explain to her that he had used the card twice to put fuel into his own car and to pay SCC for this fuel. Mr Tayamoi stated he had never done anything like this before; that he was an honest person and he apologised for the inconvenience caused. Mrs Kehoe found him to be genuinely remorseful for his actions.

Background to particular 3:

9. During 2014 SCC received a copy of a witness statement made by the mother of Service User A during the course of Family Court proceedings. This witness alleged that Mr Tayamoi had visited her home and given her a box of chocolates. Mrs Stewart (Personalisation and Safeguarding Manager at SCC) interviewed Mr Tayamoi on 29 May 2014. He stated that he had given the chocolates as a gift, because it was Christmas. He stated that all visits and communications to the mother of Service User A had been recorded on PARIS (the Council’s record system). However it was established this was not correct and there was no record of the relevant visit on PARIS. Mr Tayamoi then stated this was because the visit was not important enough to record on the system and he had been told during a training course that it was appropriate to provide sweets or chocolate on visits to children.

10. SCC’s Employee Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Rules applicable at the relevant time stated: ‘An employee must perform his or her duties with honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity’. Paragraph 5.12 of the Disciplinary Rules stated: ‘On any matter for which an employee is accountable, all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that required information is complete, accurate and available at the proper time. This requirement applies to all records and documentation.’

11. On 13 August 2014 at a disciplinary hearing, Mr Tayamoi confirmed he had given chocolates to Service User A’s family.

Background to particular 4:


12. Mr Tayamoi commenced employment with Poole Borough Council (PBC) in February 2015, as an agency worker with the Family First Service. In August 2015 he applied for a permanent Social Work position with the Safeguarding and Permanence Team at PBC. His application form included a section detailing previous employment history. Mr Tayamoi referred to having worked at SCC as a Student Social Worker and also for Solent NHS Trust as a Student Social Worker. However there was no further mention of any other previous Social Work roles in Mr Tayamoi’s application form. When questioned at interview about the apparent gap in his employment history, he stated that he had returned to his country of birth to deal with a family matter. He made no mention of any previous roles as a qualified Social Worker, despite being asked specifically about the gap in his career history. He was then offered a permanent Social Work role by PBC. It was explained to Mr Tayamoi that he would be subject to an assessed and supported year in employment (ASYE) programme, providing newly qualified Social Workers with extra support during their first year of employment. 

13. Annie Draper (Workforce Development Manager at PBC) was the ASYE Programme Coordinator responsible for registering newly qualified Social Workers onto the Department for Education’s ASYE programme, via a secure portal. On 25 September 2015 she sent an email to Mr Tayamoi asking him to complete an ASYE registration form and he duly returned a completed registration form later that day. He stated on the ASYE form that he had previously worked as a Contact Supervisor at SCC, but again made no mention of his qualified Social Work experience at SCC. Therefore on 13 October 2015, Annie Draper attempted to register Mr Tayamoi on the ASYE programme. She was unable to do so because he had already been registered on the programme by SCC. Ms Draper received an error message which stated that the relevant HCPC number was already registered. She then checked that the registration number was correct and contacted the Department for Education. They advised her that the HCPC registration number had previously been registered with another local authority. On 15 October 2015 Ms Draper spoke to Mr Tayamoi and he stated that he may have been registered by SCC.

14. Ms Draper then made enquiries with SCC and it was finally established that Mr Tayamoi had previously been registered on an ASYE programme at SCC as a qualified Social Worker, but had subsequently been withdrawn from the SCC ASYE programme on 24 September 2014. Mr Stephen Murray (Principle Manager at PBC) interviewed Mr Tayamoi on 19 October 2015. Mr Tayamoi was very apologetic and remorseful. He admitted that he had attempted to deceive PBC in respect of his SCC employment record. He attended a disciplinary hearing on 28 October 2015 and was subsequently referred to the HCPC by Mr Murray, on 17 November 2015.

15. The Panel heard oral evidence from the following HCPC witnesses: Mr Stephen Murray (Principle Manager at PBC), Mrs Sharon Stewart (Personalisation and Safeguarding Manager at SCC), Mrs Sheila Kehoe (Interim Service Manager for the Protection and Court Team at SCC) and Ms Annie Draper (Workforce Development Manager at PBC). The Panel also considered all the written material before it.

16. The Panel found the HCPC witnesses to be balanced and measured, having tested their evidence during the hearing. They were complementary about the Registrant’s work, adding that he was remorseful and polite when confronted with issues. They made it clear if they were in any doubt about an issue, for example Mrs Kehoe stated that she could not recall some of the details because she had dealt with a similar case.  They generally agreed that the Registrant was a good and competent Social Worker.

17. The Panel heard oral evidence from the Registrant. He is a qualified teacher and has a variety of qualifications. Mr Tayamoi has been employed since November 2015, as a Social Worker in the Enfield Family Support Team. The Panel granted permission for Mr Joe Fitzgerald (Team Manager Enfield Family Support Team) who has been Mr Tayamoi’s line manager since September 2016, to give evidence by telephone. He described Mr Tayamoi as: “…a reflective practitioner and an enthusiastic member of the team.” He said that Mr Tayamoi uses supervision very well, has a good attitude and has demonstrated integrity and honesty whilst working at Enfield. The Panel found Mr Fitzgerald to be balanced and measured. Mr Fitzgerald confirmed to the Panel that Mr Tayamoi had made him aware during supervision of the allegations that he faced including the allegation of dishonesty.

18. The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence to be inconsistent at times with the detail in some contemporaneous documents. In general the Panel found Mr Tayamoi to be a rather unreliable historian when recounting detail, though his remorse for his previous actions was evident. 

19. The Panel considered sequentially:

 (1) whether the factual particulars are proved;
 (2) if the proved facts amount to misconduct, and if so;
 (3) is the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired?


Particular 1:

20. The Registrant admits that whilst employed at SCC and registered with the HCPC as a Social Worker he used SCC’s credit card to pay for fuel for his own car on or around 22 December 2013. He states there was no guidance as to how the fuel card should be used and he was confused about this. He had to move a young Service User a number of times and so he did not return the card after using it, but kept it from 20 December 2013 to 21 January 2014. He accepts he should not have used the SCC card to purchase fuel for his own vehicle but says he intended to reimburse the SCC and he had been experiencing financial difficulties.

21. The Panel relied on the evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence which included the receipt in question. These factors, in addition to Mr Tayamoi’s admission, resulted in the Panel finding this particular proved. 

Particular 2:

22. As with particular 1, the Registrant admits that whilst employed by SCC and registered with the HCPC as a Social Worker he used SCC’s credit card to pay for fuel for his own car on or around 14 January 2014. He says he was moving to a monthly payment of his salary which resulted in a financial shortfall. He states there was no guidance as to how the fuel card should be used and he was confused about this. He had to move a young Service User a number of times, and made numerous visits, so he did not return the card after using it. He accepts he should not have used the SCC card to purchase fuel for his own vehicle but says he intended to reimburse SCC and he was in financial difficulties.

23. The Panel relied on the evidence of Mrs Kehoe.  No receipt for 14 January 2014 was available for the Panel. However, Mrs Kehoe confirmed that she had seen it during her investigation.  These factors, in addition to the Registrant’s admission, resulted in the Panel finding this particular proved.

Particular 3(a):

24. The Registrant denies that whilst employed by SCC in or around November 2013 he breached professional boundaries, in that he gave chocolates to Service User A’s mother. He gave chocolates to the mother on his last visit to the family, when he understood they were moving to a different area. In his oral evidence Mr Tayamoi stated that he believes in sharing things and bought a small box of chocolates for £3 or £4 as an act of kindness towards the mother.

25. The Panel relied on the evidence of Mrs Stewart and accepted her evidence that Mr Tayamoi breached professional boundaries when he gave Service User A’s mother chocolates. She explained that the Registrant was in a position of power and Service User A’s mother was vulnerable. The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence to be inconsistent with his earlier accounts of the reasons for giving the chocolates. For example during the investigation interview the Registrant stated that he gave the chocolates as a gift because it was Christmas time. The Panel concluded that Mr Tayamoi had given the chocolates to Service User A’s mother and in so doing had breached professional boundaries.

Particular 3(b):

26. The Registrant admits that he did not record the matters described in Particular 3(a) on SCC’s ‘Paris System’. He said he may have recorded the visit in a case note book. He also stated that he may not have had time to record the case on the Paris system. The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence to be inconsistent. The Panel found this particular proved because of the Registrant’s own admission, and because it had sight of the case records which do not contain an entry to indicate that the Registrant visited the family. There is also no record on the PARIS system of the gift of chocolate.

Particular 4(a):

27. The Registrant admits that whilst registered with the HCPC as a Social Worker he did not accurately represent the fact of his previous employment as a qualified Social Worker at SCC to PBC in his job application for the post of Social Worker in August 2015. He stated that after leaving SCC he registered with several agencies and was advised by them that SCC would not provide him with a reference. Therefore he “left out” his employment record with SCC from his application to PBC. He described his failure to disclose his employment history with SCC to PBC as a “terrible mistake” and says he was in deep shock when he lost his job at SCC.

28. The Panel finds that there is cogent evidence based on the application form and the evidence of Mr Murray of deliberate non-disclosure by the Registrant designed to secure employment with PBC. For this reason and because of the Registrant’s admission, the Panel finds this particular proved.

Particular 4(b):

29. The Registrant admits that whilst registered with the HCPC as a Social Worker he did not include his previous employment as a qualified Social Worker at SCC in his ASYE registration form, in or around September 2015. The Panel has relied on the ASYE registration form completed by the Registrant which omits his qualified Social Work experience at SCC and the evidence of witnesses. For these reasons, and the Registrant’s admission, the Panel finds this particular proved.

Particular 5:

30. The Registrant admits that in respect of the matters referred to in Particulars 1, 2 and 4(a) and 4(b) above he was dishonest.

31. The Registrant denies that he was dishonest in respect of the matter referred to in Particular 3b.

32. The Panel applied the two-stage test in respect of the alleged dishonesty to determine whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest Social Workers what was done by the Registrant was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter. If it was dishonest by those standards then secondly, the Panel has to consider whether the Registrant himself must have known that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest.

33. The Panel has undertaken a detailed assessment of the evidence, when considering whether the allegation of dishonesty is or is not proved in respect of each separate particular.

34. The Panel finds that the Registrant’s actions were dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest members of the profession and he would have known his conduct was dishonest by those standards in respect of particulars 1, 2, 4(a) and 4(b).

35. As to particular 1, the Registrant knowingly used the fuel card on 22 December 2013. He has admitted that this was not accidental and amounts to dishonesty.  He provided a number of inconsistent explanations and the Panel has no doubt that he acted dishonestly as admitted because the matter was not raised by him until after it was brought to his attention by a third party. His explanation when giving evidence to the Panel that he had tried to raise it earlier was not consistent with the contemporaneous interview record. 

36. As above in relation to Particular 2, the Panel finds the Registrant knowingly used the fuel card on 14 January 2014, the Panel has no doubt that he acted dishonestly because the matter was not raised by him until after it was brought to his attention by a third party. Again, his explanation that he had raised it earlier was not consistent with the contemporaneous interview record and he has admitted this amounts to dishonesty.

37. As to Particular 3(b) the Panel has noted that not all of Mr Tayamoi’s visits were recorded and some of the detail in those which were recorded on PARIS was not particularly comprehensive.  There is no record of him having given a gift to the mother of Service User A, but the Panel has concluded that although this is regrettable, it is a simple omission rather than a dishonest act. The Panel considers that in all the circumstances reasonable honest members of the profession would not be likely to regard the omission as dishonest.

38. As to Particular 4(a) the Registrant admitted that the gap in his employment history was a dishonest act.  He was given the opportunity to comment on the omission but he did not take the opportunity to own up. The Panel has found that reasonable honest members of the profession would find his omission dishonest and he must have known that his conduct was dishonest by these standards.

39. As to Particular 4(b) the Registrant admitted that the omission of his SCC Social Work role from the AYSE form would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable honest members of the profession. The Panel considered that the omission of this information was a deliberate act for personal gain and Mr Tayamoi had several opportunities to put the record straight. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant must have known that his conduct, by those standards, was dishonest.
Grounds

40. Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some serious act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a practitioner in the particular circumstances.

41. Under the HCPC standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2012 edition), Registrants are required to comply with the following standards:

3 You must keep high standards of personal conduct.


 13 you must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession.


42. The Panel finds that the Registrant’s behaviour in respect of particulars 1, 2, 4(a), 4(b) and 5 was in breach of the above standards. In respect of Particulars 1 and 2, the Registrant knowingly used the fuel card for his car and admitted that this was not accidental. In respect of Particulars 4(a) and 4(b) the Registrant again breached the standards quoted above and fell far short of his duty to provide proper disclosure in relation to his employment with SCC.

43. In relation to Particular 5 the Registrant’s dishonesty is clearly in breach of Standard 13. The Panel therefore finds Particulars 1, 2, 4(a), 4(b) and 5 are sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct and the Panel has found misconduct.

44. In relation to Particulars 3(a) and 3(b) the Panel has concluded that although the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 3(a) was unwise, and in relation to 3(b) unfortunate, those failings were not serious enough to amount to misconduct which was serious.

Impairment

45. The Panel considered the HCPC Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired. In determining whether fitness to practise is impaired, Panels must take account of a range of issues which, in essence, comprise two components:

1. the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the individual registrant; and

2. the ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and
uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

46. It is important to note that the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense; that fitness to practise is impaired at the current date. The Panel has also taken into account the critically important public policy issues.

47. Dame Janet Smith identified the circumstances where impairment might arise as: (a) where a registrant presents a risk to service users (b) has brought the profession into disrepute (c) has breached one of the fundamental tenets of the profession or (d) has acted in a way that his integrity can no longer be relied upon.

48. In respect of the public interest the following guidance was provided in the case of Grant: In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider…whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made.

49. The Panel started by considering the personal components of the case. The Registrant has demonstrated remorse and regret, as confirmed by the evidence of the Registrant’s former employers and his current employer. In addition Mr Tayamoi has expressed remorse at several stages of his evidence to the Panel. The Panel accepts the evidence of Mr Fitzgerald (who had been made aware of the allegation of dishonesty) that he has full confidence in the honesty and integrity of the Registrant having worked with him since September 2016.

50. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s evidence demonstrated some insight and remediation. The Panel noted that although Mr Tayamoi was dishonest at the SCC and when he applied to PBC, he demonstrated honesty by giving details to his new employers in Enfield about his history. In addition Mr Tayamoi demonstrated insight by stating that he will ask his Manager in future if he has any doubts about the proper course of action. He reassured the Panel that he has learned his lesson. 

51. The Registrant also acknowledged that there is further work to be done to improve his insight and achieve full remediation.  This critical self-awareness of his behaviour is significant. Mr Tayamoi is clearly a hard-working, competent and caring Social Worker as confirmed by Mr Fitzgerald and the HCPC witnesses. However, the Panel is troubled by some of Mr Tayamoi’s oral evidence which conflicted with contemporaneous documents. For example, his assertion that he tried to repay the fuel costs before being challenged. The Panel has concluded that in these circumstances Mr Tayamoi is currently impaired in relation to the personal component of the test.   

52. The Panel then considered the public component of the case. It considers that the dishonest acts were towards the more serious end of the spectrum. This behaviour brought the profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of the profession. The Panel finds the risk of repetition to be limited because of the insight demonstrated by his declarations to Enfield and the insight Mr Tayamoi is working on. However, the Panel has concluded that, because of the repeated dishonesty, it must find current impairment in relation to the public interests of upholding proper standards and maintaining confidence in the profession and its regulation. 


Decision on Sanction:

53. The purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish registrants, but to protect the public. In coming to its decision on sanction the Panel has given careful consideration to all the circumstances of this case and all the evidence which contributed to its findings on the facts, the statutory ground and current impairment.

54. It has considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties and has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In accordance with that advice the Panel has had due regard to the HCPC Indicative Sanctions Policy (ISP) 2015 edition, the Panel has noted that any sanction must be proportionate that it is not intended to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect, and that it should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public and otherwise meeting the wider public interest in protecting the reputation of the profession, maintaining confidence in the regulatory system, and declaring and upholding proper professional standards.

55. The Panel has found that the Registrant’s actions were dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest members of the profession and that he would have known his conduct was dishonest by those standards, in respect of particulars: 1, 2, 3b, 4a and 4b.

56. The Panel identified the aggravating and mitigating factors that it should take into account. The aggravating factors are:

• The Registrant’s dishonesty arose from his practice as a Social Worker and concerns two separate incidents;

• The misconduct in this case is not at the lower end of the spectrum;

• His dishonest conduct in relation to particular 4 was protracted in that he had opportunities to disclose the truth, but did not avail himself of those opportunities;

• He secured his employment with PBC as a Social Worker dishonestly.

The mitigating features are:

• The Registrant has fully engaged with the HCPC process and admitted all the factual particulars found proved, except 3a.
• He has been successfully working in his current social work role since November 2015.
• He has received an excellent reference from his current line manager, who has managed him since September 2016.
• The HCPC witnesses stated he was genuinely remorseful for his actions in particular Mr Murray (Principle Manager at PBC) described the Registrant as very apologetic and remorseful.
• The Panel has found that there is a limited risk of repetition and the finding of current impairment is primarily based upon the public component.
• He has demonstrated some insight and reflection
• No other HCPC proceedings have been brought against the Registrant.


57. In deciding what, if any, sanction to impose under Article 29 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the Panel had regard to the principle of proportionality and the need to balance the interests of the public with those of the Registrant.


58. The Panel concluded that taking no action or mediation would not be appropriate due to the seriousness of the misconduct. These options would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession.


59. The ISP states that a caution order should be considered in cases where there is an isolated lapse or relatively minor in nature, the conduct is out of character and the risk of repetition is low. The Panel has determined that a caution order is not an appropriate sanction in this case due to Mr Tayamoi’s dishonesty on two separate occasions and because it does not regard the facts found proved to be relatively minor in nature.


60. The Panel went on to consider conditions of practice but concluded that conditions of practice are not an appropriate or workable sanction in this case because it involves dishonesty and the Panel has already concluded that the misconduct was at the higher end of the spectrum. 


61. The Panel then considered the imposition of a period of suspension.  The Panel has already made comment on aspects of Mr Tayamoi’s evidence which it was not entirely satisfied with and it has already found that his insight is not fully developed.  These factors coupled with the seriousness of the facts found proved, would in many cases be proportionate grounds for a striking off order.  However, at the invitation of the Panel, Mr Mullally gave the Panel some context to the events in question.  Full detail was given of events which are private matters, and which are detailed in the Panel’s Private determination. The result of these events required a financial commitment which Mr Tayamoi had to meet as well as the emotional consequences of what had occurred.  This information was shared with the Panel and Mr Mullally stated that Mr Tayamoi did not wish to rely on those events in any way as he fully accepted his responsibilities to act with integrity as a Social Worker.

 
62. The Panel has concluded that Mr Tayamoi’s acceptance of his responsibility and the avoidance of putting forward his personal circumstances as mitigating factors, are compelling evidence of an unusual level of insight and acceptance.  This factor has resulted in the Panel’s consideration that a suspension order is appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances of this case.  The misconduct is at the more serious end of the spectrum and for this reason the Panel has determined that a Suspension Order for 12 months is appropriate and proportionate.


63. The Panel considered imposing a Striking Off Order which is a sanction of last resort.

64. It has concluded that striking-off is not merited in this case for the reasons already cited and because a Suspension Order is a sufficient deterrent to other registrants.  The Panel consider that the suspension order will maintain public confidence in the regulatory process and the reputation of the profession.


65. This order will be reviewed before it expire.  The reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by:

• The Registrant’s attendance at the review hearing;

• Testimonials from paid or voluntary work, or character references if Mr Tayamoi has not been in employment;

• A reflective piece and any other learning which addresses the issues of the case.

Order

Order: 


The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr James-Moni Tayamoi for a period of 1 year from the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

A Final Hearing was held in London on 17-21 April 2017 in which a 12 month suspension order was imposed.

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Mr James-Moni Tayamoi

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
18/04/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Suspended