Manjinder Biant

: Social worker

: SW68736

Interim Order: Imposed on 28 Jan 2016

: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing:10:00 02/08/2017 End: 17:00 08/08/2017

: Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), 405 Kennington Road, London, SE11 4PT

: Conduct and Competence Committee
: Conditions of Practice

Allegation

Allegation (as amended):


Whilst employed as a Social Worker at Leicestershire County Council, you:

 

1. In relation to Service User A between January 2014 and May 2015 did not:

 

a. Complete an assessment within a timely manner;

 

b. Complete an assessment that contained sufficient detail in relation to Service User A’s needs


c. Record any contact with the Service User between April 2014 and July 2014.


2. In relation to Service User B, between March 2014 and December 2014 did not complete an assessment in a timely manner;


3. Completed an inadequate tribunal report of Service User C dated 20 January 2015.


4. In relation to Service User D’s assessment dated 13 January 2015, did not make a recommendation to the Panel to consider deprivation of liberty safeguards.


5. In relation to Service User E between April 2014 and July 2014, did not complete an assessment in a timely manner and/or did not organise a multi-disciplinary team meeting.


6. Completed an inadequate assessment of Service User F, dated 15 August 2014, in that you did not assess or comment upon the risk of over-dose for
this Service User;


7. In relation to Service User G, between May 2014 and October 2014, you did not complete a safeguarding assessment and/or investigation within a timely manner;


8. In relation to Service User H, you did not complete an adequate assessment between June 2014 and February 2015 in that you:


a. Did not consider the Service User’s mental capacity when making recommendations for courses of action;


b. Did not carry out a detailed risk assessment of the service user that was up to date including information after 2009.


9. The matters described in paragraphs 1 – 8 above amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence.


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

Finding

Preliminary Matters

1.   The case for the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (the “HCPTS”) was presented by Ms Rebecca Turner of Kingsley Napley. The Registrant was present and represented by Ms Carolina Bracken of Counsel, instructed by Messrs Blackfords, LLP.

Application to amend the allegation

2.   The Panel considered Ms Turner’s application to amend the stem of particular 1 of the allegation by deleting “August and December 2014” and substituting “January 2014 and May 2015”; to amend particular 1b) by deleting the words “of Service User A’s personalisation needs in relation to a potential home move” and substituting the words “that contained sufficient detail in relation to Service User A’s needs”; to amend particular 1c) by inserting the words “Record any” before the word “contact” and inserting the word “with” after the word “contact” and by deleting the words “in a timely manner when the case was allocated to you” and substituting “between April 2014 and July 2014”; to amend particular 2 of the allegation by deleting the word “you” and substituting “between March 2014 and December 2014”; to amend particular 3 of the allegation by deleting the word “assessment” and substituting the words “tribunal report” and by deleting the words “in that it contained multiple spelling mistakes”; to amend particular 4 of the allegation by deleting the words “consider whether” and substituting the words “make a recommendation to the Panel to consider” and by deleting the words “applied to the case”; to amend particular 5 of the allegation by deleting “12 March and 15 September 2015” and substituting “April 2014 and July 2014”, by deleting the word “you” and adding the words “and/or did not organise a multi-disciplinary team meeting”; and to amend particular 7 of the allegation by deleting the word “March” and substituting “May 2014”, by deleting the word “an” and inserting the word “safeguarding” and inserting the words “and/or investigation” after the word “assessment”.

3.    Ms Turner advised that the proposed amendments more accurately reflected the dates and made the allegation clearer and that there would be no prejudice caused to the Registrant in allowing the amendments. Ms Bracken did not oppose the application.

4.   The Panel considered the submissions of Ms Turner and Ms Bracken together with the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that the amendments better reflected the documentary evidence within the bundle. The Panel was also satisfied that they did not cause any prejudice or injustice to the Registrant. The Panel therefore agreed to grant the application in full.

5.   The Registrant admitted the facts of particulars 1c), 3, 4 and 8a) and denied the facts of particulars 1a), 1b), 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 8b) of the allegation.

Proceeding in private

6.   The Panel agreed to hear any evidence in relation to the Registrant’s health in private in terms of rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence Procedure Rules 2003. The Panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor and considered the Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private. The Panel concluded that the right of the Registrant to protection of her private life and confidentiality of her health issues outweighed the general presumption of hearings being conducted in public.

Background

7.   The Registrant is a Social Worker registered with the HCPC. She was employed by Leicestershire County Council from 21 September 2011, initially in the Community Mental Health Team. In January 2014, she was appointed to the post of part-time Team Manager Senior/ Manager in a hospital Team. For the remaining 18.5 hours per week, she was employed as a Social Worker and Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) within the Charnwood Mental Health Team.

8.   The allegations relate to the Registrant’s role as a Social Worker and AMHP. She was initially supervised in 2014 by JJ, Team Manager. JJ identified a number of issues with the Registrant’s practice from supervision sessions dating back to April 2014. The issues related to the recording of visits, the frequency of visits with service users and the quality of the social work assessments she produced. In approximately September/October 2014 the Registrant’s relationship with JJ broke down and she was then supported by PP, Team Manager, from October 2014 until February 2015. The Registrant was provided with a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) from 31 October 2014.

9.   PP provided enhanced supervision and guidance to assist the Registrant with overcoming issues with her practice and addressed the Registrant’s performance during supervision sessions. His issues in relation to her practice were similar to those raised by JJ. The concerns related to her recording of visits, the timeliness of her assessments, the quality of her assessments, and her ability to assess risk. The Registrant had an updated PIP from 10 February 2015.

10. The Registrant was off work on sick leave from 24 February until 25 June 2015 and when she returned she was supervised by CJ, who was a Locality Manager at the time. The matter progressed to formal capability proceedings in December 2015.

11. IR, Service Manager, oversaw the capability process initiating a performance improvement process which ran alongside supervision.  This was in place from October 2014 when a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) was initiated. He produced the Management Statement of Case for the Capability Hearing. The matter was subsequently referred to the HCPC.

Decision on Facts

12. The Panel heard evidence from four witnesses on behalf of the HCPTS all of whom were employed by Leicester County Council at the time of the allegations: JJ and PP, both Team Leaders; CJ, Locality Manager and IR, Service Manager, all of whom were employed by Leicestershire County Council. The Panel also heard evidence from the Registrant.

13. The Panel found the witness JJ to be credible, fair and balanced. The Panel found that he answered questions to the best of his recollection and reflected on his answers. The Panel noted that he supervised the Registrant for a period of time effectively between 5 and 6 months. There was a breakdown in their relationship but the decision to remove him as line manager for the Registrant was taken by IR.

14. The Panel found the witness PP to be credible and found that he said if he could not remember details. The Panel noted that he had an intensive period of supervision with the Registrant during which she described feeling “policed” and “micro managed”. The Panel felt that PP demonstrated some sensitivity during this process and took steps to respond to this, for example, by moving the Registrant to another room to work. The Panel was of the view that he was balanced and made a number of positive comments about the Registrant’s performance in the course of his evidence.

15. The Panel found IR to be a credible, measured and thoughtful witness. The Panel noted that when he could not recall the details, he refreshed his memory from the papers. The Panel also noted that, in addition to his concerns, he made a number of positive comments about the Registrant’s performance and that he had had the best overview of her performance. The Panel accepted that he was responsive to the Registrant’s needs and provided a number of support measures to assist her, for example a reduction in her workload, a change in her line manager and providing a note-taker for supervision sessions.

16. The Panel noted that CJ had a minimal involvement with the Registrant and supervised her for a period of just over two months. Although CJ did not give any direct evidence to the allegations, the Panel found her to be a credible witness who assisted the Panel with background information.

17. The Panel found that, for parts of her evidence, the Registrant lacked an awareness of her own weaknesses. In her analysis of what happened during the period of the allegations, she criticised others and in particular did not acknowledge her own role in the difficulties with her managers.  However, it appeared to the Panel that when she was presented with evidence of a contrary view, she accepted the position but did not fully accept responsibility for her actions. The Panel found her to be credible but at times appeared unaware.
 
18. In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel considered all of the evidence and documentation submitted by both parties and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It recognised that the burden of proving each individual particular rests always on the HCPC and that the HCPC will only be able to prove a particular if it satisfies the required standard of proof: the civil standard, whereby it is more likely than not that the alleged incident occurred.
 
Particular 1a)

19. Although initially denied by the Registrant, the facts of this particular were admitted in the course of giving her evidence, having been taken through the documents by her Counsel. The Panel has heard evidence from JJ, PP and IR in support of this particular. In addition, the Panel has had sight of the case records and records of supervision sessions in respect of Service User A from which it can be seen that the Registrant was allocated the case on 24 January 2014 and the requirement to conduct an assessment was discussed during the supervision session in April 2014. The Registrant submitted her final version of the assessment on 11 November 2014. In considering this matter, the Panel has taken into account the periods of sickness absence and annual leave which occurred during the period from January 2014 to May 2015.  The Panel heard evidence from PP that the Assessment should have been concluded within 4-6 weeks. The Panel is satisfied that in the circumstances, the Registrant’s delay was unacceptable and finds that the assessment was not completed in a timely manner. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s admission is supported by the evidence and finds the facts of particular 1a) proved on the balance of probabilities.  

Particular 1b)

20. Although initially denied by the Registrant, this particular was admitted in the course of giving her evidence, having been taken through the documents by her Counsel. The Panel has heard evidence from JJ, PP and IR in support of this particular. In addition, the Panel has had sight of the assessment for Service User A from which it can be seen that there is a lack of detail in relation to Service User A’s communication needs and special interests.  The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Registrant’s admission is supported by the evidence and finds the facts of particular 1b) proved on the balance of probabilities.  

Particular 1c)

21. The Registrant admitted the facts of this particular at the outset of the hearing. The Panel has heard evidence from IR and JJ in support of this particular. In addition, the Panel has had sight of the case records for this Service User from which it can be seen that there is no record of any contact with the Service User between April 2014 and July 2014. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s admission is supported by the evidence and finds the facts of particular 1c) proved on the balance of probabilities.  

Particular 2

22. The Registrant had denied the facts of this particular, although in the course of her evidence did accept that she should have pursued Service User B’s Support Worker more vigorously in order to arrange a meeting with the Service User.  The Panel has heard evidence from JJ, PP and IR in support of this particular. In addition, the Panel has had sight of the case records and records of supervision sessions in respect of Service User B from which it can be seen that the Registrant was allocated the case in March 2014 and the requirement to conduct an assessment was discussed during the supervision sessions in April, July and September 2014. It is clear from the case records that the Registrant attempted to meet with the Service User on 25 April 2014 and he failed to attend. No attempts were made to re-arrange the meeting until 11 July 2014, when the Registrant made contact with the Service User’s Support Worker, and again on 14 August 2014. The meeting then took place on 11 September 2014, with the start date of the assessment being recorded as 11 November 2014. The Panel has also taken account of the Registrant’s sickness absences and leave during this period and is satisfied that the delay from April until November 2014 is such that this assessment was not completed in a timely manner. The Panel therefore finds the facts of particular 2 proved on the balance of probabilities.

Particular 3

23. The Registrant has admitted this particular. The Panel has heard evidence from PP and IR in support of this particular. In addition, the Panel has had sight of the original assessment together with the annotations made by PP as to matters which should have been included within the report and especially within the risk assessment/conclusions section. The Registrant has accepted that she should have explored these matters in more detail. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s admission is supported by the evidence and finds the facts of particular 3 proved on the balance of probabilities.  


Particular 4

24. The Registrant has admitted the facts of this particular. The Panel has heard evidence from PP and IR that Service User D lacked mental capacity and that the Registrant should have made a recommendation to the Panel to consider Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). In addition the Panel has had sight of Service User D’s case records and the assessment dated 13 January 2015. The Registrant accepts that on the basis of the information available to her at the time, that she should have included in her assessment a recommendation to consider DOLS. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s admission is supported by the evidence and finds the facts of particular 4 proved on the balance of probabilities.  

Particular 5

25. The Registrant denied the facts of this particular. The Panel heard evidence from JJ and IR in support of this particular and has had sight of the case notes and notes from supervision sessions relating to Service User E.  The case was allocated to the Registrant in January 2014, with an initial visit taking place on 8 May 2014 and a home visit taking place on 24 July 2014. The Service User was subsequently admitted to hospital in August 2015. It is clear from the case notes that an assessment was not carried out between April and July 2014, despite being discussed at supervision sessions in April and July 2014. Again the Panel has taken account of the Registrant’s absences during this period and finds that a delay of three months in conducting an assessment of a vulnerable service user is not acceptable and is satisfied that the assessment was not completed in a timely manner.

26. The Panel also heard evidence from JJ that in their July supervision meeting, he asked the Registrant to organise a Multi-disciplinary Team Meeting (MDT). From the case records, it appears that a “Professionals Meeting” (which is an MDT meeting without service users’ involvement) was arranged for 25 September 2014. However no such meeting was arranged between April and July 2014 and the Panel therefore finds the facts of this particular proved on the balance of probabilities.

Particular 6

27. Although initially denied by the Registrant, the facts of this particular were admitted in the course of giving her evidence, having been taken through the documents by her Counsel. The Panel heard evidence from PP and IR in support of this particular and had sight of the case records and the Assessment in respect of Service User F. In the Assessment the Registrant states that the Service User is “very suicidal”, without undertaking a risk assessment to establish the level of risk or means to mitigate it. The Registrant has accepted that in hindsight she should have elaborated on this issue and that she should have carried out a better risk assessment. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s admission is supported by the evidence and finds the facts of particular 6 proved on the balance of probabilities.  

Particular 7

28. The Registrant has denied the facts of this particular IR provided some evidence to the Panel on this Service User but the Panel did not rely on this as it appeared to relate to a different assessment. The Panel also heard evidence from JJ and PP in support of this particular and had sight of the case notes for this Service User and the notes of the supervision sessions. The Registrant was advised by JJ in the supervision session in April 2014 to complete an assessment and from the notes of the supervision session in July 2014 it was noted that the assessment was not yet complete. It is also noted that in October 2014 during a supervision session with JJ the Registrant accepts that the assessment has not been completed. 

29. The Panel heard from PP that the safeguarding investigation was started on 29 May 2014 and completed on 31 October 2014 and that he would have expected it to be completed within two weeks as there was no further follow up required.  He further stated that the Registrant was aware that it needed to be completed as it had also been identified on her improvement plan. The Panel find this delay is not acceptable even taking account of the Registrant’s absences during this period. The Panel is satisfied that the safeguarding assessment and the investigation were not completed in a timely manner.

Particular 8a)

30. The Registrant has admitted that she did not consider Service User H’s mental capacity when making recommendations for courses of actions. The Panel has heard evidence from PP and IR in support of this particular and is satisfied that their evidence supports the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 8b)

31. The Registrant has denied that she did not carry out a detailed risk assessment of the Service User that was up to date and included information after 2009 and denied that she did not complete an adequate assessment between June 2014 and February 2015. The Panel has heard evidence from PP and IR in support of this particular and has had sight of the assessment. While it is clear from the assessment that there is some information which is dated after 2009, this has been drawn down from other records and there is no evidence of a current risk assessment having been carried out. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the facts of particular 8b) have been proved to the requisite standard. The Panel also finds that the failure to consider the Service user’s mental capacity and the failure to carry out an up to date risk assessment amount to a failure to complete an adequate assessment and therefore finds the facts of particular 8a and 8b proved.

Decision on Statutory Grounds

32. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s actions in particulars 1 to 8 amount to misconduct and/or lack of competence. The Panel is aware that this is a matter for its professional judgement. In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered the submissions of Ms Turner on behalf of the HCPC and those of Ms Bracken on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel has also accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

33. The Registrant has suggested to the Panel that the structure of her employment impacted on her ability to practice and that working in two part-time roles on separate sites contributed to her difficulties, as did the complexity of her caseload. However the Panel is aware that the Registrant is a very experienced practitioner, having qualified as a social worker in 1994 and having worked in social care in an unqualified role for a number of years prior to this. In addition, the Registrant was trained and qualified as an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP). The Registrant was also offered considerable support and direction from her managers throughout the period of the allegations and had considerable opportunities to attend training.  The Panel therefore finds that she had the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to carry out her role. The Panel does not therefore find that her actions resulted from a lack of competence. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s conduct in particulars 1 to 8 fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and breached the following standards of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics in force at the relevant time :-

• Standard 1 – You must act in the best interests of service users

• Standard 7 – You must communicate properly and effectively with service users and other practitioners.

• Standard 10 – You must keep accurate records.

34. The Panel has found that the Registrant has demonstrated failures in the quality and timeliness of social work assessments and reports for particularly vulnerable service users. The Registrant’s conduct was serious and fell well below the standards expected of a registered professional. Taking all of these matters into account, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in particulars 1 to 8 amounts to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment:

35. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired by that misconduct.  The Panel heard submissions from both parties and received legal advice. In reaching its decision the Panel has considered both the personal component and the public component and referred to the HCPTS practice note on ‘Finding Fitness to Practise is impaired’.

36. In terms of the personal component, although the Registrant has explained how she would respond differently if she found herself in a similar situation in the future, it is clear to this Panel that she does not fully accept responsibility for her failings and continues to blame others.  The Panel is of the view that the Registrant does not have full insight into her failings, although her level of insight is developing and appeared to improve throughout the course of her evidence. The Registrant has also produced a number of positive references, including one from her current employment as a Health Care Assistant. However the Registrant has not practised as a Social Worker since the allegations and there is no evidence before this Panel of remediation. Given the lack of full insight and lack of remediation, the Panel has taken the view that there is a risk of repetition.

37. The Panel has also considered the critically important public policy issues which include the collective need to maintain public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process, the protection of service users and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour.

38. The Panel has found that the Registrant has failed on a number of occasions to complete adequate assessments and reports in respect of very vulnerable service users in a timely manner. In these circumstances the Panel has concluded that there is a serious risk of an adverse impact on public confidence in the profession of Social Workers and in the regulatory process, if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances.

39. The Panel therefore finds that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired by her misconduct and the allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

40. The Panel has heard further submissions from Ms Turner and Ms Bracken on the issue of sanction. The Panel is aware that the function of fitness to practise panels is not to be punitive, and that the primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk the Registrant may pose to those using or needing her services in the future. In reaching its decision, the Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest considerations, which include the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.  The Panel has considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity and has had regard to the HCPTS’s Indicative Sanctions Policy and considered the advice of the Legal Assessor.

41. The Panel has paid careful regard to the following mitigating factors: the Registrant has demonstrated some insight and has made some admissions; there have been no previous fitness to practise proceedings against the Registrant in the course of her lengthy career; the panel has heard evidence that the Registrant had good relationships with service users, that she engaged well with them and was very committed as a social worker; she has produced a number of very positive professional references including a reference commenting on her previous post as Social Worker at the Cedar Centre Community Mental Health Team and one from her current post as an Health Care Assistant; her perception during the period of the allegations was that she was being “policed” and “micro-managed” and she felt disempowered; she has developing insight and there appears to be a willingness to reflect further during the course of this hearing.

42. The Panel has also considered the aggravating factors as follows: this was not an isolated incident and involved eight different service users over a lengthy period of time; the failings continued in spite of the considerable support and training offered by the Registrant’s employers; the Registrant has not demonstrated full insight and has not produced any evidence of remediation, leading the Panel to conclude that there is a risk of repetition; her actions potentially impacted on particularly vulnerable service users. 

43. The Panel first considered whether to take no further action. It is of the view that this would not be sufficient to address the wider public interest considerations or to provide public protection. The Panel has also concluded that this case would not be suitable for mediation.

44. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. In terms of the Indicative Sanctions Policy, a caution may be appropriate where the lapse is isolated or of a minor nature, there is a low risk of recurrence and the Registrant has shown insight and taken remedial action. While the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight, there is no evidence of remediation. In addition, the Panel has found that the Registrant’s misconduct was serious and that in the absence of any evidence of remediation, there is a risk of repetition. In these circumstances, the Panel is of the view that a caution would not be an appropriate or proportionate sanction.

45. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel is of the view that the issues are capable of remediation. Although the failings were not isolated incidents, they were limited to that particular employment and the Registrant had worked as a Social Worker for a considerable period prior to the allegations and the Panel has no knowledge of any previous issues. The Panel is also of the view that appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated and the Registrant can be expected to comply with those conditions. The Panel therefore considers that a Conditions of Practice Order would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction, given the significant mitigation in this case.

46. The Panel also considered a Suspension Order.  However, taking account of the circumstances in this case, the Panel was of the view that a suspension would be both punitive and disproportionate, given the Registrant’s previous career history, the Panel’s view is that the failings are capable of remediation.

47. The Panel considered that a period of 15 months would be appropriate and would allow the Registrant time to find employment as a Social Worker and comply with the conditions.

Order

Order: The Panel directs the Registrar to annotate the Register to show that for a period of fifteen months from the date that this order takes effect “ the operative date”, you, Manjinder Biant  must comply with the following conditions:-

1. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up any employment as a Social Worker.

2. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

3. Once employed as a Social Worker, you must place yourself and remain under the supervision of a workplace supervisor registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator and supply details of your supervisor to the HCPC within one month of the appointment of that supervisor. You must attend upon that supervisor as required and follow their advice and recommendations.

4. You must work with your supervisor to formulate a Personal Development Plan (PDP) designed to address the deficiencies in the following areas of your practice:

• Analysis of information collected, in particular risk assessments

• Timescales for work undertaken

• Prioritising workload

• Quality of work to reach an acceptable standard.

 5. Within three months of commencing employment as a social worker, you must forward a copy of your PDP to the HCPC.

6. You must meet with your supervisor at least on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your PDP.

7. You must allow your supervisor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your PDP.

8. You must maintain a record of your achievements against your PDP targets which must be signed by your supervisor and sent to the HCPC a minimum of 28 days in advance of any review hearing.

9. You must produce a reflective practice piece on the Panel’s findings and must provide a copy of that to the HCPC a minimum of 28 days in advance of any review hearing.

10. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions;

a) any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work

b) any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application)

c ) any prospective employer ( at the time of application)



 

Notes

The order imposed today will apply from 4 September 2017 (the operative date).

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 4 December 2018.

 

Hearing history

History of Hearings for Manjinder Biant

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
31/10/2018 Conduct and Competence Committee Review Hearing Hearing has not yet been held
02/08/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Conditions of Practice
07/07/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Interim Order Review Interim Conditions of Practice
13/04/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Interim Order Review Interim Conditions of Practice
19/01/2017 Conduct and Competence Committee Interim Order Review Interim Suspension
25/10/2016 Investigating committee Interim Order Review Interim Conditions of Practice
27/07/2016 Investigating committee Interim Order Review Interim Conditions of Practice
28/01/2016 Investigating committee Interim Order Application Interim Suspension