“… the matter of misconduct was for its judgement, not involving a burden or standard of proof. To find misconduct, as a statutory ground, the panel had to consider the findings of fact amounted to ‘serious professional misconduct’. This embraced conduct both within professional practise, but also outside it in an appropriate case, for example where disgrace was brought on the profession. The question as to whether the conduct was ‘serious’ was a matter for the panel, with regard to the HCPC standards relevant at the time. The panel should consider the findings in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Allegation separately.”
“You must keep high standards of personal conduct, as well as professional conduct. You should be aware that poor conduct outside of your professional life may still affect someone’s confidence in you and your profession.”
“You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”
“Understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.”
“it should consider all the evidence, the submissions and its findings. It should refer to the SG issued by Social Work England and updated in December 2022. The panel had to impose the minimum sanction, if any, which met the level of impairment and which was sufficient to meet the overarching objective of protecting the public. The panel should balance Ms Gleeson’s interests with the public interest”
“The decision of the Respondent to make a removal order against the Appellant was wrong and/or unjust because of a serious irregularity. In particular: 1. It was wrong and unfair for the Respondent to investigate and determine whether the Appellant was ‘emotionally abusive’ and/or ‘often … aggressive’ in non-professional relationships. It was wrong as the Respondent did not have jurisdiction to consider such charges. It was also unfair as the charges were inadequately particularised. 2. In the alternative to 1, if there was jurisdiction and it was fair to investigate and determine such allegations, the chair’s interventions, restricting the questions which the Appellant’s representative was permitted to ask Person A about their relationship, were wrong and/or irregular. It was unjust to hold a hearing into whether the Appellant was ‘emotionally abusive’ and/or ‘often aggressive’ towards Person A while limiting the questions that could be asked about the nature of the relationship between the Appellant and Person A. 3. The Respondent was wrong to find that the Appellant’s emotional conduct, in non-professional relationships, was professional misconduct. 4. It was wrong and unfair to permit the Respondent materially to amend Allegation 2(b)(ii) after the witnesses had given evidence. This led to injustice as a finding of misconduct was made in respect of an allegation the Appellant had no fair opportunity to consider or provide evidence in relation to. 5. In their findings on Allegations 2(b)(i)-(ii), the Respondent failed to have regard to (a) the evidence of the Respondent’s good character, (b) the fact that no charges were brought against the Appellant in relation to the incident, despite police attendance, (c) the fact that Person B was heavily intoxicated on the night in question and (d) the fact that Person B accepted, in cross-examination, that her recall of the order of events on the relevant evening was wrong. 6. The Respondent was wrong to accept and/or failed to give adequate reasons for accepting the evidence of Persons A and B in relation to the allegations, in spite of the inconsistencies between their evidence and earlier documentary evidence. 7. It was wrong and procedurally unfair to treat the Appellant’s denial of the allegations against her as evidence of lack of insight which justified a finding of misconduct and the most serious sanction.”
“There was further police involvement on8 February 2015 when Person A contacted the police for assistance because she had received several unpleasant calls from the Social Worker and she had visited the Social Worker to tell her to stop the contact. Both parties were advised not to contact each other, the police took Person A home and no further action was taken by the police”
“Misconduct is of two principal kinds. First, it may involve sufficiently serious misconduct in the exercise of professional practise such that it can properly be described as misconduct going to fitness to practise. Second, it can involve conduct of a morally culpable or otherwise disgraceful kind which may, and often will, occur outwith the course of professional practise itself, but which brings disgrace upon the doctor and thereby prejudices the reputation of the profession.”
“You must keep high standards of personal conduct, as well as professional conduct. You should be aware that poor conduct outside of your professional life may still affect someone’s confidence in you and your profession.”
“There is a qualitative distinction between conduct that does or may tend to undermine public trust in the solicitor’s profession and conduct that would be generally regarded as wrong, inappropriate or even for the person concerned, disgraceful. Whether that line between personal opprobrium on the one hand and harm to the standing of the person as a provider of legal services or harm to the profession per se on the other hand has been crossed, will be a matter of assessment for the Tribunal from case to case”
"Of course, no sanction was to be imposed on him for his denials as such; however, insight requires that motivations and triggers be identified and understood, and if that is possible at all without there first being an acceptance that what happened did happen it will be very rare, and any assessment of ongoing risk must play close attention to the doctor's current understanding of and attitude towards what he has done.". (5) The assessment of the extent of insight is a matter for the tribunal, weighing all the evidence and having heard the registrant. The Court should be slow to interfere: Motala §§30 and 31. "
“137. Suspension may be appropriate where (all of the following): • the concerns represent a serious breach of the professional standards • the social worker has demonstrated some insight • there is evidence to suggest the social worker is willing and able to resolve or remediate their failings 138. Suspension is likely to be unsuitable in circumstances where (both of the following): • the social worker has not demonstrated any insight and remediation • there is limited evidence to suggest they are willing (or able) to resolve or remediate their failings” • the concerns represent a serious breach of the professional standards • the social worker has demonstrated some insight • there is evidence to suggest the social worker is willing and able to resolve or remediate their failings • the social worker has not demonstrated any insight and remediation • there is limited evidence to suggest they are willing (or able) to resolve or remediate their failings”