Upload
truongquynh
View
219
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A
B
C
D
E
F
HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL MEETING
Conduct and Competence Panel Hearing
held within
Thistle Hotel Glasgow, Cambridge Street, Glasgow, G2 3HN
at 10.30am on Friday, 4th February, 2005
Panel Members:
Dr. Graham Beastall, Chair and Council Member. Mrs. Erica Bradley, Speech and Language Therapist.
Mr. John MacKenzie, Lay Partner. Present:
Mr. Michael Guthrie, Hearing Officer.
Mrs. Angela Hughes, Legal Assessor.
APPEARING:
Mr. John Harding, Solicitor, Messrs. Kingsley Napley, Solicitors, for the
A
B
C
D
E
F
Health Professions Council. Mr. Rory McPherson, Solicitor, Messrs. Thompsons, Solicitors, Glasgow, for Miss Lindsay Boyes.
FRIDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY, 2005
THE CHAIR: Good morning, this
is the Health Professions Council Conduct and
Competence Panel Hearing in the case of Lindsay
Boyes. I suggest that we start by introducing
ourselves and expressing our particular roles
in the proceedings.
So my name is Dr. Graham
Beastall, I am a Member of the Health
Professions Council and it is my role to Chair
the Panel today.
MRS. BRADLEY: My name is Erica
Bradley, I am a Speech and Language Therapist,
I am a Manager and a Clinician Therapist.
MR. MacKENZIE: I am John
MacKenzie, and I am the Lay Partner.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Thank you
3
A
B
C
D
E
F
Chair, I am Angela Hughes, and I am the Legal
Assessor. My role is to advise the Panel on
law and procedure and to ensure that the
proceedings are conducted fairly and properly.
I am independent of the Panel and any advice I
give whilst the Panel is sitting would be
placed on the record. I may also be asked to
advise the Panel on questions of law after the
Panel has retired and if I do so I will confirm
that advice when the Panel resumes in public.
Once the Panel has reached its decision I may
also be asked to help to draft that decision to
ensure that it complies with any relevant law
and to make sure reasons are given. If I am
asked to do so it will only be after the Panel
has reached its decision as I am independent of
the Panel and will not take any part in the
decision-making process.
MR. GUTHRIE: I am Michael
Guthrie, and I am the Hearing Officer.
MR. HARDING: John Harding,
Solicitor for the Council.
4
A
B
C
D
E
F
MR. McPHERSON: I am Rory
McPherson, Solicitor for Miss Boyes.
THE CHAIR: Let’s proceed then.
Mr. Guthrie, could you maybe read the
allegation in this case?
MR.GUTHRIE: The allegation in
the case of Miss Lindsay Boyes is that “your
fitness to practise as a registered health
professional is impaired by reason of your
conviction for assault at Dumfries Sheriff
Indictment Court”.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Mr.
McPherson, clearly Miss Boyes isn’t here, how
would you feel she would wish to respond to the
allegation?
MR. McPHERSON: She admits the
allegation made against her.
THE CHAIR: She does admit the
allegation.
MR. McPHERSON: She does admit
the allegation.
MR. HARDING: Could I just say
5
A
B
C
D
E
F
does that include “impairment” as well?
MR. McPHERSON: No, just to
qualify these, I understand that there is a
two-stage test, the admission of the allegation
and the question as to whether the allegation
impairs her fitness to practise. In relation
to the question of whether the allegation
impairs her fitness to practise I am not in a
position to admit that, I have no instructions
to admit that, I would observe that the
incident took place outwith work albeit that it
was a very serious matter.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, that
helps to set the scene.
MR. HARDING: I anticipate that
you have had an opportunity to read the bundle
that I submitted on behalf of the Council which
included amongst other things two statements.
THE CHAIR: Indeed.
MR. HARDING: Sir, Lindsay Boyes
is a registered health professional and Speech
and Language Therapist and she has been so
6
A
B
C
D
E
F
registered since the 1st of October, 2001.
In November, 2003, Lindsay Boyes
was a Grade 2 Speech and Language Therapist
based at Coylton Health Clinic as an employee
of the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board as it is
now called.
Lindsay Boyes started employment
with that Trust in 2000 as a Speech and
Language Therapy Assistant prior to the
conclusion of her degree course. She was
subsequently taken on in 2001 as a registered
Speech and Language Therapist. The latest
allegation relates to a conviction for assault
and she was convicted at Dumfries Sheriff Court
and following a plea of guilty she was
sentenced to a year’s probation and community
service on the 8th of June, 2004 and you will
see the certificate of conviction at page 9 of
your bundle.
The brief facts surrounding this
conviction are as follows. You will see from
Sgt. Johnstone’s statement that on the 16th of
7
A
B
C
D
E
F
November about 11.30 in the evening he was on
duty and he received a call in which he was
advised that an allegation of assault had been
made against Lindsay Boyes. Due to the time of
night it was decided that he wouldn’t approach
Lindsay Boyes then, he would do it the
following morning and he duly did. He went to
her home address where she was detained for
interview and investigation.
The facts of the allegation are
briefly as follows – It was alleged that
Lindsay Boyes went to the home address of the
victim. She had taken a knife from the kitchen
at that address and went to his bedroom and an
altercation ensued with the result that the
victim received a cut to his face and right
hand, and the nature of the injuries are set
out on Sgt. Johnstone’s statement.
The victim and Lindsay Boyes
were well known to each other. When Lindsay
Boyes was interviewed under caution on the 17th
of November she explained that she had been
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
sexually assaulted by a third party in the
toilets of the Masonic Hall in Moniaive, I hope
I have pronounced that right, where the victim
was the keyholder and bartender. She believed
that he was aware of the assault and could have
intervened to stop it. The incident apparently
happened at 6am in the morning on the 17th of
November and it was apparent during the course
of the interview that all parties had been
drinking heavily throughout the course of that
night and into the early hours of the next day.
It was also apparent during the course of the
interview that Lindsay Boyes had suffered a
bereavement and that her grandfather had died a
few days before. It was also said that during
the course of her interview she was very
remorseful and the officer formed a view that
alcohol very much played a heavy part in her
behaviour which was duly regarded, which he
regarded as out of character.
Towards the end of November,
2003, Lindsay Boyes advised her employers of
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
the situation who decided to monitor the
position until she decided whether she was
going to plead guilty or not guilty.
In May, 2004, Lindsay again
approached her employers, told them that she
had been advised to plead guilty, and at that
point she was suspended.
Sir, you will have seen from the
correspondence today that she was subsequently
dismissed in December.
Sir, you have in your bundle two
statements, those witnesses are here and if you
want to ask them any questions we can call them
forward. I don’t have anything to ask them
because they have provided me with a statement
and I don’t think Mr. McPherson does either,
but they are here and can give evidence and
answer any queries you have got if you wish.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, we did
discuss this before we came in and our view is
that we have no wish to question Christopher
Johnstone, the Police Sergeant, his evidence is
10
A
B
C
D
E
F
fine, no questions. We would however like to
have a brief word with Jane Kerr.
MR. HARDING: Can I just make
one or two points on the issue of impairment in
my opening...
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR. HARDING: As that has been
specifically identified as an issue.
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR. HARDING: Sir, you will be
familiar with the “Standards of Conduct,
Performance and Ethics”, and I hope you have
got a copy of that and I would particularly
refer you to Rule 3 and Rule 16 and if I can
just read those to you if I may. Rule 3 – “You
must keep high standards of personal conduct,
as well as professional conduct. You must not
do anything that may affect someone’s treatment
by, or confidence in, you. We can take action
against you if you are convicted of a criminal
offence or have accepted a police caution. But
we will always consider each case individually
11
A
B
C
D
E
F
and we will take decisions in the light of the
circumstances of the case. However, as
guidance, we will seriously consider rejecting
an application for registration, or striking
you off if you are already registered, if you
are convicted of a criminal offence that
involves one of the following types of
behaviour:” and it lists them and one of the
categories it refers to is “Violence”. So you
are aware of that and if I can remind you of
Rule 16. “You must make sure that your
behaviour does not damage your profession’s
reputation. You must not get involved in any
behaviour or activity which is likely to damage
your profession’s reputation or undermine
public confidence in your profession.”
Sir, you will have picked up
from the comments made more recently in the
letter from the Trust dismissing Lindsay Boyes
that there were concerns because of the client
group which she was dealing with, and certainly
your Speech and Language Therapists on the
12
A
B
C
D
E
F
Committee will also no doubt advise you as to
the vulnerable nature of the clients who need
speech and language therapy input and take that
into account.
Sir, that’s all I have got to
say in opening the matter, but perhaps I could
call Mrs. Kerr forward now and perhaps once she
has taken her oath and you have introduced
yourselves perhaps I could just formally ask
her to give her full name and so on and then
hand her over to you.
MRS. JANE KERR sworn –
BY THE CHAIR: Thank you very
much for coming Mrs. Kerr. I think it would be
helpful if we just introduced ourselves sitting
round the table and then I’ll pass over to Mr.
Harding to just confirm your role. My name is
Graham Beastall and I am a Member of the Health
Professions Council and it is my role to Chair
the Panel’s proceedings today.
MRS. BRADLEY: I am Erica
13
A
B
C
D
E
F
Bradley, and I am a Speech and Language Therapy
Manager and Clinician from Sheffield.
MR. MacKENZIE: I am John
MacKenzie and I’m the Lay Partner.
MRS. HUGHES: I am Angela Hughes
and I am the Legal Assessor for today’s
proceedings.
MR. GUTHRIE: I am Michael
Guthrie and I am the Hearing Officer today.
MR. HARDING: You know me, John
Harding.
MR. McPHERSON: I am Rory
McPherson and I represent Miss Boyes.
EXAMINED BY MR. HARDING: Can I
just ask you to give the Committee your full
name please? – My name is Jane Kerr.
And your occupation? – I am
Speech and Language Therapy Manager for the NHS
Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Division, I
think that’s what we are today.
And can I just be clear, you
were in November, 2003, Lindsay Boyes’ manager?
14
A
B
C
D
E
F
– I was, indeed.
The Committee have your
statement which you should have a copy of in
front of you there as well and please feel free
to refer to that if you need to, it is at page
4. The Committee have asked you to come
forward because they have got one or two
questions for you.
BY THE CHAIR: Thank you very
much for coming Mrs. Kerr. Our questions
really are not so much about the statement
which you have given which is very clear, but
it’s more about the role that Lindsay Boyes
played as Speech and Language Therapist within
the employing Authority, the Division, so if I
can pass over to Erica Bradley to ask
questions.
EXAMINED BY MS. BRADLEY: I
understand that you knew Lindsay for a period
of about 4 years? – That’s correct.
When she worked with you as an
assistant and then when she qualified? – Yes.
15
A
B
C
D
E
F
And during that time were there
any concerns raised during supervision and
appraisals or anything like that about her
competency? – She had joined us as an assistant
because she had had a fail at practical
examination and we have for many years employed
assistants, we are well known in Scotland as an
area where we use assistants in the Service,
and Lindsay’s home area is Dumfries and
Galloway which is our neighbouring area, and I
know the educational establishment Strathclyde
course very well and the people who teach
there, and so we often help people out, and she
came for this period of employment as an
assistant and then went to do her final
practical re-sit placement with our acute
organisation and so she was sort of in the area
for quite some time, so I knew about her
academic background and her difficulty in
entering the profession originally. She then
joined us as a newly qualified therapist and we
employ many of them and it’s the way our
16
A
B
C
D
E
F
service brings members of the profession on, so
we have quite a good system and we published
some years ago around the process alongside
Elspeth McCartney and there are checks and
balances in that system and, you know, our
feeling really was that Lindsay had potential
to be quite a good speech and language
therapist, her problems were in other areas,
and attendance was one of them.
You mentioned that she actually
failed the practical it wasn’t the theory? –
Yes.
So did she work with you as an
assistant for how long? – It was really just a
few months.
A few months? – But it gave
quite a bit of supported practise and she then
went to do the re-sit practical.
And she passed obviously? – Yes,
she did.
And when she was working for you
she worked I know from very young pre-5
17
A
B
C
D
E
F
children right through the spectrum to the
elderly, didn’t she? – We have quite an unusual
service although we don’t now have a totally
area-wide service because there is a separate
at the moment acute service headed up by
someone else but within our community service
we do have a cradle to the grave service, we
provide all the paediatric service including
acute paediatrics, and we have fairly elderly
patients, elderly mental health patients, and
those referred to all ages by their general
practitioners. So it’s a wide scope. The
majority however are children.
Yes? – You will understand that
with your knowledge of the profession.
Yes, thank you.
And the locations, would the
majority would be in a clinic situation or a
nursery? – The majority are not clinic based.
No? – Because we are in quite a
mixed urban rural with quite a heavy rural
background clinic attendance is not good and we
18
A
B
C
D
E
F
support and have done historically and many are
young people in their educational
establishments, but of course combined with
that since 1992 we have had contracts with our
Local Education Authority and provide services
for children with in the widest sense special
educational needs not restricted to those with
statements or records, and the model there is
collaborative practice, and that is best
conducted in the school setting.
So not a huge number of home
visits? – Not a huge number no, but end of day
follow-up, finding, you know, obviously if
parents have difficulty coming in, school
holiday times.
Yes? – There are more.
Yes. Thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. MacKenzie.
EXAMINED BY MR. MacKENZIE: Yes,
you did mention that there were some problems
in relation to attendance and other areas I
think you said, are you able to just elaborate
19
A
B
C
D
E
F
a bit on that? – If it’s felt to be
appropriate, you know, it was not part of the
original and certainly not part of our process
at all, our process locally was clearly around
only this one incident and I must make that...
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: If I can
maybe just interrupt, I think really the Panel
should probably restrict themselves to
questions relevant to the allegation before
them as opposed to other matters that
haven’t...
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MRS. BRADLEY: Sorry, would it
be fair to ask would you sort of recommend
Lindsay to be, or would you employ her in this
capacity again, should she be able to work for
you again? – I am sure that Lindsay will grow
up, I think she was a young person.
Thank you.
BY THE CHAIR: Thank you, could
I just ask one sort of final question and it
reveals my complete ignorance of speech and
20
A
B
C
D
E
F
language therapy, so I apologise. You have
indicated that the role that Lindsay had
involved a very wide range of clinical
practice, is it possible, not necessarily in
your employing authority, but are speech and
language therapists employed elsewhere in more
specialist type of roles where they can work
with one group of clients rather than a wide
spectrum? – I am sure that is the case
particularly in hospital settings as opposed to
community settings. Our, the aim of the
organisation tells us all that it’s community
and that’s the focus.
Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. Harding,
anything arising from that.
MR. HARDING: No thank you.
THE CHAIR: Mr. McPherson have
you any questions.
MR. McPHERSON: Nothing arising
from anything Mrs. Kerr has said this morning.
THE CHAIR: Okay. Well, I think
21
A
B
C
D
E
F
we would be happy for Mrs. Kerr to stand down.
You feel that you may wish to ask her something
later.
MR. McPHERSON: No, I’ve got, in
relation to Mrs. Kerr’s statement, there seems
to be one comment in relation to her statement
but it is simply for clarification.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. McPHERSON:
At paragraph 6 of your statement? – Yes.
“On 27th November, 2003 I
received a telephone call from Lindsay Boyes
who was on sick leave at” that “time”. Am I to
understand that Miss Boyes was in fact on sick
leave when the incident that you’ll be aware of
took place? – She went on to sick leave at the
beginning of the week after the incident if my
memory serves me correctly. I think that her
mother phoned to indicate that she was unwell.
THE CHAIR: No other questions
Mr. McPherson.
MR. McPHERSON: No other
questions.
22
A
B
C
D
E
F
THE CHAIR: So Mrs. Kerr can be
released then.
BY THE CHAIR: Thank you very
much indeed for coming in, we do appreciate it.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL
MR. HARDING: That with the
witness statements and the evidence we have
just heard from Mrs. Kerr, that’s the Council’s
case. The stage you are at at the moment if I
have got this right is you have got to decide
whether the allegation is well founded and the
live issue then is whether the conviction is an
impairment to her fitness to practise.
I am not going to repeat what I
said in opening having just said it a moment
ago. Now, the Council’s case is that it is
impairment for the reasons I have set out and
no doubt Mr. McPherson will want to address you
at this point.
23
A
B
C
D
E
F
THE CHAIR: Mr. McPherson.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF MISS BOYES
MR. McPHERSON: First of all
simply by reference to the Rules. Miss Boyes
is not contesting that it is incompetent for
the Committee to consider this matter, it is
clearly provided within the Rules that HPC can
take action against an individual if they are
convicted of a criminal offence and it doesn’t
provide within the Rules that the HPC are
required in fact to take action, it is provided
that the Committee will always consider each
case individually and will take decisions in
the light of the circumstances of the case and
will, but again it is not disputed, it is open
to the HPC to consider, seriously consider a
very serious disposal such as striking off
where there has been a single incident such as
violence, but in the context of this case it
would be submitted that there are individual
24
A
B
C
D
E
F
circumstances that should be taken into account
but if I may just expand a little bit further.
THE CHAIR: Yes, please do.
MR. McPHERSON: The Committee
has I believe before it a letter from the
General Practitioner which was, I’m not sure of
the date of the letter from the General
Practitioner. The Committee may appreciate
that I’m working, yes, the Committee will have
before it a letter from the General
Practitioner and perhaps before I go into any
specific details I understand the Committee
also have a letter from Miss Boyes that was
sent to myself that I passed on to the
Committee.
THE CHAIR: Yes, indeed, we have
read that.
MR. McPHERSON: The Committee
may appreciate that I am working somewhat
without specific guidance or instructions but
on a deductive basis perhaps, as I understand
the chronology of matters Miss Boyes was
25
A
B
C
D
E
F
diagnosed as suffering from depression in
around May, 2003 according to her General
Practitioner and her grandfather died
tragically a few days before the assault took
place. There is certainly an allegation that
she has made of a very serious nature against a
third party a day or a couple of days before
the assault takes place. The assault takes
place it appears late at night outwith work
when she has been taken out with friends
essentially to cheer her up following upon the
loss of her grandfather. Following upon that
she advises her employers of what has happened.
She faces a criminal charge and she elects to
plead guilty and doesn’t elect to seek to
contest the allegation on 8th of June. She is
given probation for a year, and I think reading
from the GP it would appear in March 2004 she
suffers another very serious matter, perhaps
more serious even that the loss of her
grandfather, a miscarriage in March, 2004. The
GP’s letter has been dated 16th June, 2004.
26
A
B
C
D
E
F
The GP indicates as I understand
it that she is continuing to receive treatment
for depression at that stage.
She is assessed by the Social
Work Department using their clinical formal
risk assessment tool and I don’t offer to, I
wouldn’t offer to suggest that I have any great
insight as to risk assessment tools other than
this is clearly the device used by social
workers to assess the risk to the community of
individuals who may re-offend, and their
clinical assessment is that she is at low risk
of further offending, that is in July, 2004.
All this time it would appear under treatment
for a level of depression which originated in
May, 2003, she faces a Disciplinary Hearing
with her employers and again because she
doesn’t wish to suggest that she doesn’t
recognise the seriousness of the allegations
against her although this was an incident
outwith work and although there would be a
technical legal argument to say it would not be
27
A
B
C
D
E
F
open to an employer to dismiss somebody for a
matter outwith work notwithstanding the
vulnerable nature of the group, she does not
take that, she does not seek to appeal that,
she does not seek to appeal it internally or
via an Employment Tribunal.
Given the terms of her letter to
myself I had considered seeking an adjournment
on the basis that she is telling me that she is
depressed. Now, she does not ask for an
adjournment, in fact she makes it very clear
that she is not asking for an adjournment, and
so I have got no locus to ask for an
adjournment. Equally I have a concern that
there is a medical matter, namely the
depression, which has come through from the GP,
a clear diagnosis since May, 2003.
We have a further matter in
relation to whether the incident could be said
to impact on her fitness to practise. The
incident does take place outwith work. It does
appear to have taken place in what can only be
28
A
B
C
D
E
F
seen as exceptional circumstances, the loss of
her grandfather and following upon, I hesitate
to say it, following upon a very serious matter
the following year there is absolutely no
suggestion from the Social Work that there has
been any further transgressions of any nature
at all. In fact she points out she is
continuing with her probation and unpaid
community work, and I have to say that on the
information I have, it doesn’t strike me that
the allegations of themselves de facto impair
her fitness to practise in the context that
there does appear to be a medical matter which
may well have been behind it, and I’m not sure
that I am in a position to say any more on the
basis of the very limited instructions I have.
THE CHAIR: So just to be clear
we have this letter from Thompsons which
“confirms that the Health Professions Council
will agree to adjourn the Hearing”, you are now
not suggesting...
MR. McPHERSON: I’m not
29
A
B
C
D
E
F
suggesting, I have no instructions from Miss
Boyes to seek an adjournment, but equally I am
conscious that Miss Boyes is advising me in
that letter that she is suffering from a
clinical condition, namely depression, which
may impair her ability to give full
instructions, so I am in some difficulty.
Equally she is quite candid in
that letter and it doesn’t appear the letter is
in any way in my view incoherent, and it
appears that she is as it were accepting the
possible outcome of this Committee, but there
is I would suggest a fairly clear theme of a
medical condition running through this which I
appreciate hasn’t been brought before the
Committee previously but equally shall we say
in my defence as it were as can be seen I have
very limited instructions from Miss Boyes.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Chair,
perhaps if I could come in at this point. The
Health Professions Order Schedule 1, Article
6c, which refers to the makeup of Panels of
30
A
B
C
D
E
F
Practice Committees provides that where the
health of the person is relevant to the case
there should be at least one registered medical
practitioner and clearly HPC have not been made
aware that health was an issue. Perhaps you
would like to refer to Mr. Harding on that
point.
THE CHAIR: Well, my view on
that is the Panel has to decide whether health
is in fact an issue relating to the specific
incidents. I think what has happened since
that incident may well mean that the health of
Miss Boyes has changed. I think we would
probably first of all need to decide whether it
would be a factor at the outset.
MR. HARDING: Sir, the point I
would make here that you have some documents
here to help you.
THE CHAIR: Yes.
MR. HARDING: Firstly, you’ve
got the statement of Mr. Johnstone and no point
is it suggested to him during the course of his
31
A
B
C
D
E
F
investigation that health was a factor in the
offence. We then got sent a letter from John
Henderson & Sons, Solicitors, who were asked no
doubt on Mrs. Boyes’ instructions to set out
the mitigation – no reference there in relation
to the offence, and I emphasise that, that
depression played, you know, depression or lack
of medication, whatever, was a factor in the
offence. The factors in the offence as
identified in the interview and the letter from
the solicitors is alcohol and the suggestion of
indecent assault.
THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you. I
think that is one of the things that we will...
MR. HARDING: The other thing
that I would also add is that the suggestion in
the documents you have that Miss Boyes was
suffering from depression during the course of
2003. During that period she was of course
working, there is no suggestion from the
witness today we have heard from that they were
concerned about her ability to perform by
32
A
B
C
D
E
F
virtue of any health issues.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Mr.
McPherson, have you any other comments you wish
to make?
MR. McPHERSON: No I have
nothing further to add at this stage.
THE CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Do
you have any questions for Mr. McPherson, you
don’t.
Well the normal procedure at one
of these Panels is that the Panel considers
whether the allegation is well founded, and
then returns to consider any mitigation before
retiring again to consider what might be
appropriate sanctions. It does seem to me that
the defence that you have given us over the
last few minutes in effect amounts to
mitigation in this particular case and I wonder
whether there is any merit in us retiring to
come back to listen to the same mitigation
again. So perhaps is there anything that you
would wish to add at this stage?
33
A
B
C
D
E
F
MR. McPHERSON: I am grateful
for, Chairman, your indication as to your
thoughts. Other than indicating that again
drawing your, drawing the Panel’s, the
Committee’s attention to the terms of the
letter that was issued by Miss Boyes to myself
to be presented to the Panel, Miss Boyes is
clearly not denying the seriousness of the
allegations, and although one perhaps is
tempted to take, draw a conclusion from
somebody failing to turn up at a Hearing I
think that would be an unfair conclusion given
the very clear terms in which she has expressed
herself.
As far as any further matters I
would simply again draw your attention to the
Social Work conclusions that there is no
evidence of any continuing risk, she is
regarded as a low risk, so the only evidence
that the Committee have is that she is a low
risk which I would suggest indicates that she
is essentially the same as any other person,
34
A
B
C
D
E
F
and it would be somewhat dangerous to suggest
that she should be treated as somebody who is
at risk of committing a similar offence in the
future given that there is no evidence of that,
and in fact the evidence is quite the contrary,
and I have already drawn your attention to the
issue of the medical condition.
Beyond that I have really
nothing further to say at this stage other than
of course Miss Boyes appreciates that it is
open to the Committee to withdraw her
registration. She appreciates that the
Committee may feel a period of suspension is
more appropriate. I had considered whether a
limited period of suspension given the medical
information might be appropriate but I am not
sure as to the, quite candidly, as to the
powers of the Committee as to whether it can be
fixed for a period for review but I will leave
that to the Committee.
MR. HARDING: Would it help if I
just remind you of what your disposals are.
35
A
B
C
D
E
F
THE CHAIR: It would indeed,
thank you.
MR. HARDING: So first of all
just to emphasise you first must decide whether
it is well founded.
THE CHAIR: Indeed.
MR. HARDING: And then you move
on to the disposal Sir.
THE CHAIR: Indeed.
MR. HARDING: So if you find it
well founded you have a number of options open
to you. First of all you have to decide
whether it is appropriate to refer the matter
for mediation or to decide to take no further
action. That’s your first stage. So if you
don’t feel that sufficiently protects the
public you then move up the ladder, and if I
can explain each rung to you.
The next disposal available to
you on the ladder is a caution – that’s where
the Registrar is directed to annotate the
register with a caution for a specified period
36
A
B
C
D
E
F
which shall be not less than 1 year and not
more than 5 years.
Sir, if you don’t feel that is
sufficient to protect the public you then move
up another rung to a Conditions of Practice
Order which the person must comply with for a
specified period which shall not exceed 3 years
– that’s a Conditions of Practice Order.
Sir, further up the tariff is
the Suspension Order where you can suspend
registration for a period not exceeding 1 year.
Just to touch on that that Suspension Order
will be reviewed before it expires, you are
required to do that, the Conduct Committees are
required to review Suspension Orders and to
extend or not as the case may be.
Finally Sir, the ultimate is a
Striking-off Order and you will be aware that
if a Striking-off Order is made a Registrant
can’t apply to come back on to the register for
a minimum of 5 years.
So those are your powers unless
37
A
B
C
D
E
F
I can be of any further assistance.
THE CHAIR: Just one point of
clarification if you don’t mind. In terms of a
Caution Order, that would automatically expire
would it at the end without the need for a
further Hearing.
MR. HARDING: Yes, there’s no
review on the caution.
THE CHAIR: It’s rather like
points on a driving licence in the sense that
it self-expires.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Any questions?
MR. MacKENZIE: No I don’t.
MRS. BRADLEY: No.
THE CHAIR: Okay, well I think
on that basis we’ll retire and consider the
matter in the two specific areas, first of all
whether the allegations are well founded and if
so what might be an appropriate sanction.
(After an adjournment)
38
A
B
C
D
E
F
THE CHAIR: Right, thank you, we
took advice from Mrs. Hughes so perhaps you
would start by explaining what we wished to
seek her advice on.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Thank you,
Chair, I confirm that I assisted the Panel with
the drafting of their decision only, I didn’t
take any part in the decision-making.
THE CHAIR: Thank you. Well we
then have a decision from the Panel and I’ll
read it to you – The Panel has considered all
the evidence presented and has decided that the
allegation that Lindsay Boyes fitness to
practise as a Registered Speech and Language
Therapist is impaired by reason of her
conviction for assault is well founded.
Conviction for assault is a serious offence
that indicates that Miss Boyes has not
maintained a high standard of personal conduct
as required by paragraph 3 of the HPC Standards
of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.
39
A
B
C
D
E
F
Furthermore, the Panel believes
that the conviction has damaged the reputation
of the Speech and Language Therapy profession
and so contravenes paragraph 16 of the same
Standards.
The Panel has reviewed the
sanctions open to it as a result of finding the
allegation well founded. It has concluded that
for such a serious offence it would be
inappropriate to take no further action or to
issue a Caution Order.
The Panel does not believe that
in the current circumstances a Conditions of
Practice Order would provide sufficient
protection to the public, nor would it be
feasible to issue an appropriate Conditions of
Practice Order at this point in time.
The Panel considered the option
of a Striking-off Order but believe that Miss
Boyes has demonstrated a sufficient degree of
insight, remorse, and willingness to resolve
matters. The Panel also took note of the
40
A
B
C
D
E
F
exceptional mitigating circumstances and is of
the view that there is a low risk of
recurrence, therefore the Panel decided against
a Striking-off Order.
It is the decision of the Panel
that a Suspension Order be imposed on Miss
Boyes for a period of 9 months.
The Panel notes that a
Suspension Order should not prevent Miss Boyes
from seeking employment as an Assistant Speech
and Language Therapist working under
supervision.
Right of Appeal – Miss Boyes may
appeal against the Committee’s decision and the
Order that it has made. Articles 29(9), (10)
and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001
provide that Miss Boyes has 28 days from the
date of this Notice to make such an Appeal to
the Court of Session.
The order set out above will not
take effect until that appeal period has
expired or, if Miss Boyes appeals during that
41
A
B
C
D
E
F
period, until the appeal is withdrawn or
disposed of.
That concludes the business
today.
MR. HARDING: There is one
matter that arises out of that. I would apply
for an interim Suspension Order to cover the
period 28 days or disposal of the appeal
whichever is the longer.
THE CHAIR: Would you like to
explain for the benefit of my colleagues on the
Panel the reasoning for that.
MR. HARDING: Well the reason is
Sir, that it is almost a standing instruction
to Solicitors to the Council, you will have
picked up that if Mrs. Boyes was to appeal her
suspension next week then that suspension
wouldn’t be effective, and therefore the public
wouldn’t be protected as you have decided they
should be by a Suspension Order until that
appeal is disposed of, maybe in 6 months time.
So for that reason I apply for an interim
42
A
B
C
D
E
F
Suspension Order for a period of 28 days or
disposal of the appeal whichever is the longer.
That’s under Article 31.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Perhaps you
would like to liaise with Mr. McPherson on that
point. I can advise the Panel that if they are
satisfied that it is necessary to protect
members of the public or otherwise in the
public interest or in the interests of the
person concerned, they could make an interim
order and it would expire, if there was no
appeal the interim order would expire at the
end of the 28-day appeal period. If there was
an appeal the interim order would remain in
force until that appeal had been withdrawn or
disposed of.
THE CHAIR: Are you clear, Mr.
McPherson.
MR. McPHERSON: I am quite
clear. I have to say I would not seek to
oppose that.
THE CHAIR: Well, I have to say
43
A
B
C
D
E
F
the Panel had anticipated such a request and we
are happy to approve such a request.
I think Ladies and Gentlemen
that concludes the Panel Hearing. Thank you
for your attendance today.
_______________