HCPC v Social worker
A social worker was referred on several charges including one of dishonesty.
If they were not represented it is quite possible that all the facts, misconduct and impairment would have been found and they would have been subject to a sanction.
But, fortunately, the registrant was a UNISON member and was represented by an experienced officer in PSU who was successful in redacting (ie getting taken out) extensive damning irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that supported the HCPC’s charge of dishonesty.
Dishonesty was not found and the remaining charges that were proved amounted to lack of competence and the registrant’s current fitness to practise was not impaired.
HCPC v Paramedic
There were several serious charges in relation to the death of a patient and the registrant was redeployed to a non-clinical role with the same ambulance trust. However, although facts were proved at the substantive hearing, misconduct was not found.
HCPC v Occupational therapist
An occupational therapist was charged with lack of competence and with UNISON assistance applied for and was granted voluntary removal from the HCPC register on ill-health grounds.
Other information
Following submissions from UNISON, many cases are closed at the regulator’s investigation stage when registrants follow our advice to provide evidence of insight and remediation. So they never go to a hearing.
When a regulator’s investigating committee finds that there is a case to answer and the matter proceeds to a substantive hearing, this can be a daunting prospect for anyone, but particularly so for unrepresented registrants.
The regulators’ annual reports show that registrants are up to four times more likely to be found fit to practise at their hearings if they are represented. Or, to put it another way, registrants are up to four times as likely to be found currently impaired and receive a sanction if they are un-represented.
When allegations indicate that, if proven, the registrant poses a serious risk to the public or they have brought their profession into such disrepute that the public would lose faith in that profession, registrants are referred to interim order hearings.
Interim order hearings decide whether a registrant should be suspended from their professional register by way of an interim suspension order (ISO) or become subject to restrictions on their practice by way of an interim conditions of practice order (ICoP).
Interim hearings are arranged at very short notice, often before registrants can arrange representation and, as such, they are likely to have ISOs imposed against them.
When UNISON representation is subsequently provided, the registrant’s UNISON representative can often successfully apply for an early interim review hearing to present evidence to persuade the hearing panel to replace an ISO with an ICoP, or to revoke any existing interim order.
