Health and Care Professions Council v Oyedele [2015] EWHC 1021 (Admin)

Case No CO/677/2015[2015] EWHC 1021 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Tuesday, 3 March 2015
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
SIR STEPHEN SILBER
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Between
HEALTH AND CARE PROFESSIONS COUNCILApplicantv
Between
OYEDELERespondent
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DYTel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424E‑mail: mlsukclient@merrillcorp.com(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr C Catsambis (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell) appeared for Applicant for The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
J U D G M E N T
[1]SIR STEPHEN SILBERThis is an application by the Health and Care Professions Council (" the Applicant") that an interim suspension order made by the Applicant against Ms Oyedele (" the Respondent") should be confirmed and should be further extended for a period of 12 months from today.[2]The background to this case is the Respondent is a biomedical scientist and her profession is regulated by the Applicant. Their role is to protect the health and well‑being of people who use the services of health practice professions registered with them and to ensure that those professionals are fit to practise.[3]The Respondent was employed by the East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust as a biomedical scientist at haematology and blood transfusion services at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital from 2 April 2013.[4]On 23 July 2013, the Applicant received an e‑mail from that Trust which raised concern about the Respondent's fitness to practise. The Trust notified the Applicant that the Respondent had been suspended due to allegations of fraud. They concerned potentially fraudulent employment references which the police were investigating on behalf of the Trust. The police also reported its concerns about the Respondent's fitness to practise to the Applicant.[5]There was also a report made to the Applicant that the Respondent on 21 July 2013 had been involved in a serious clinical incident at the hospital where she cross‑matched and issued incompatible blood for a patient who then received a transfusion.[6]An internal investigation was carried out which revealed a whole series of discrepancies in the Respondent's training and personnel files. They raised a suspicion that she may have submitted false qualifications and career history.[7]By a letter of 14 August 2013, the Trust informed the Applicant that the Respondent had been summarily dismissed on 25 July 2013.[8]In September, the police informed the Applicant the Respondent had failed to attend an interview under caution and that their case had therefore been forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service.[9]On 19 December 2013, the Applicant was informed the Respondent had been summoned to appear at Medway Magistrates' Court on 13 January 2014, but it appeared that she failed to attend and a summons was issued for a warrant.[10]On 21 August 2013, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent to notify her of its intention to apply for an interim order at a hearing of the Applicant's investigatory committee. The application was made to Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 whereby an interim order may be imposed if the investigating committee is:
"satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the person concerned, for the registration of that person to be suspended or to be made subject to conditions."
[11]There was a hearing before a panel of the investigating committee on 3 September at which the Respondent was neither present nor represented. An interim suspension order was made for 18 months because of the need to protect the public. The panel noted that: i. "There is a high degree of risk and likelihood that the conduct alleged may be repeated if no interim order were made."[12]In addition, the panel was conscious of : i. "The likelihood of serious damage to public confidence if [the Defendant] were allowed to continue with service users before the allegation of impairment had been established at a final hearing."[13]Under the terms of the order, it is necessary for the order of the kind that had been made to be reviewed within 6 months and therefore every 3 months. The order was reviewed and confirmed on 19 February 2014 at which the Respondent was neither present nor represented.[14]It was decided that the hearing should be heard in private to avoid any risk of prejudice to the furtherance and the fairness of the criminal proceedings. The panel concluded that a conditions of practise was appropriate and concluded that such an order would be necessary to secure the necessary degree of public protection.[15]The order was reviewed and confirmed for a second time by a panel on 7 May 2014 at which the Respondent was neither present or represented. The panel explained that it was necessary to continue the order.[16]The third and fourth occasions at which the order was confirmed were on 4 August 2014 and 30 October 2014. At neither of those hearings was the Respondent present or represented.[17]The final review and confirmation was on 8 January this year at which the Respondent was neither present or represented. The reasoning of the committee of the panel was very similar to that on previous occasions.[18]So far as the fitness to practise allegations are concerned, the panel at a meeting in August 2014 determined that there was a case to answer in relation to a series of allegations, which I have briefly summarised above. Notice was then served to the Respondent informing her that arrangements would be made for the case to be heard.[19]By a letter dated 19 November, the Applicant informed the Respondent of its intention to apply to the panel on the day of the hearing to formally amend the allegations, but the main ones to which I have referred still remained. Indeed, the application to amend was accepted at a hearing on 26 and 27 January 2015.[20]The present position is that at that preliminary hearing, the panel concluded the Respondent's case should be joined with three other cases due to the overlap and the interests of establishing the true scale of misconduct. It had been provisionally fixed for May 2015, but it has been pointed out that it is not unusual for hearings to go part heard or to be adjourned for logistical reasons, for example at the request of a registrant who may have other commitments.[21]The Respondent has been served with today's application. It has been sent to her last-known address. It has not been returned and she is not present today. Nevertheless, it seems to me appropriate to give her liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order if it transpires that she was not properly notified.[22]So far as the length that is required, the application is for a 12 month extension. I was concerned about the length of it, but have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to do it for that period on the basis that the Respondent has liberty to apply to vary or discharge this notice after giving written notice to the Applicant.[23]Subject to those points, I will make the order.[24]What I would like you to do, please, is can you just redraft the order, I think by manuscript, so that I can then consider it?[25]MR CATSAMBISMy Lord, of course.[26]SIR STEPHEN SILBERThank you very much for your help.[27]MR CATSAMBISI am grateful.