Grant v Health and Care Professions Council

An appeal from a professional regulator’s decision is allowed only where the decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. A reviewing panel is entitled to proceed from factual findings made by an earlier panel where those findings were not appealed. In assessing continuing impairment, relevant considerations include insight into past misconduct and what might prevent repetition. A sanction may protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and uphold professional standards; it must not be imposed as punishment. Where a registrant continues to deny established dishonesty and shows no adequate insight or remediation, a striking-off order may be proportionate.

The appellant, a social worker, appealed under article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 against a striking-off order imposed by the third Health and Care Professions Council Conduct and Competence Committee panel. An earlier panel had found dishonesty in the appellant’s use of her employer’s car-rental account and imposed a period of suspension. A review panel later extended the suspension after finding continuing impairment.

The appellant challenged the dishonesty findings, the fairness and purpose of the regulatory process, the assessment of impairment, and the striking-off sanction. The central issues were whether the earlier findings could be revisited, whether continuing impairment was established by the appellant’s lack of insight and remediation, and whether the sanction was punitive or protective.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the court could dismiss the appeal, quash or substitute the decision, or remit the case. The appeal was conducted as a rehearing under CPR PD 52D paragraph 19.1, applying the test in CPR 52.11.3.
2. The appellant had not appealed the first panel’s findings that her use of the employer’s account involved dishonesty. Those findings therefore had to stand. It was too late to challenge them in an appeal against the later review decision.
3. The court accepted that impairment could depend not only on past conduct but also on insight into what had gone wrong and what could be done in future to prevent repetition. The principles identified in Amao v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 147, cited in Yusuff v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 13 (Admin), were relevant.
4. The third panel was entitled to find continuing impairment where the appellant provided no adequate reflection, remediation, insight or remorse, continued to deny the established dishonesty, and failed to recognise her professional responsibilities. The wider public interest also supported the impairment finding.
5. The striking-off order was protective and regulatory rather than punitive. After two periods of suspension and continuing resistance to addressing the identified failings, sanctions short of striking-off could reasonably be regarded as serving no useful purpose. None of the appellant’s ten reasons disclosed legal error or serious procedural irregularity.

The judgment states that the appeal was brought to the High Court under article 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 against the striking-off decision of the third Conduct and Competence Committee panel. The appeal was dismissed.