Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council & Anor

On a statutory appeal concerning professional disciplinary sanctions, the expiry date of an extended conditions of practice order made on a mandatory pre-expiry review is determined by the statutory scheme, not by construing the committee’s use of words such as with immediate effect.

Article 30(1)(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001 requires an extension to operate consecutively from the date on which the existing order would otherwise have expired. A later review committee has no power to treat that start date as a question of fact, evidence or the earlier committee’s intention. A failure to conduct the required review, allowing public-protection conditions to lapse without deciding whether they remain necessary, is wrong in law and insufficient for public protection.

The Professional Standards Authority appealed under section 29 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 against a decision of an HCPC review committee concerning Mr Sharf, a regulated healthcare professional.

Mr Sharf had been subject to conditions of practice orders. On 1 December 2023, an HCPC committee extended the order for four months. A further committee convened on 3 April 2024 concluded that the order had expired and that it lacked jurisdiction to review it. The central issue was whether the December order expired on 1 April or, by operation of Article 30(1)(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001, on 13 April 2024.

1. Appeal allowed. The April 2024 committee’s decision was wrong in law and insufficient for the protection of the public.
2. Article 30 provides two routes to review. Article 30(1) imposes a duty to review an order before expiry. Article 30(2) and (4) provide a discretionary power to review an order while it remains in force. The mandatory route has primacy.
3. Where a committee acts under Article 30(1), Article 30(1)(a) provides that an extension takes effect from the date on which the existing order would otherwise have expired. The provision ensures seamless consecutiveness and avoids any gap in public-protection conditions.
4. The December 2023 committee was convened in discharge of the HCPC’s mandatory duty under Article 30(1). The previous order expired on 13 December 2023. The four-month extension therefore ran from 13 December 2023 to 13 April 2024. The words with immediate effect could not alter those statutory dates.
5. The question was one of law, not evidence or interpretation of the December committee’s intentions. The April committee had no power to adopt a different expiry date by reference to the order’s wording, the public register or administrative records.
6. The April committee was obliged to conduct and determine the review with regard to the overarching objective of protecting the public. The court quashed its decision and substituted a decision that an extant order was in place on 3 April 2024 and that there was a duty to review it.
7. Further directions, including whether the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted committee, were left for further submissions.

• HCPC review committee: On 3 April 2024, the committee decided that the conditions of practice order had expired and that it had no jurisdiction to review it.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The decision was quashed. A substituted decision was made that an order remained extant and that the committee was under a duty to review it.