HCPTS refuse HCPC’s application for an interim order
Kings View persuade Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) to refuse an application by the HCPC to impose an interim order for a client accused of theft and dishonesty.
We applied for an adjournment seeking further evidence, which was granted. The HCPC were given a clear warning as to the need for some level of cogency in their evidence, even though the IOT is not a fact-finding Tribunal. At the adjourned hearing, the HCPC produced further evidence, which we were able to pick apart to demonstrate that it simply did not stand up to scrutiny or support the allegations being made.
We argued that the Tribunal, whilst not allowed to find facts, were obliged to assess the overall weight of the evidence. The HCPC argued that serious allegations were being made and that was enough. The Tribunal agree with us entirely and delivered a scathing assessment of the case and the HCPC. They refused to make any order at all and acceded to all of our arguments and conclusions.
“Our client went from almost accepting an interim suspension to achieving no order at all.”
Fitness to practise defence barrister, Stephen McCaffrey, who represented AG, commented:
“It was a case which went straight to the heart of the issue of the extent to which IOT’s should analyse evidence upon which the application is based.
“AG had given up as previous lawyers told her she would be suspended. She came to us for a second opinion and we viewed it entirely differently.
“This case showed once more that a second opinion is always worthwhile. The case presented by the HCPC was incredibly weak and they believed that by repeating the serious allegations continuously they would avoid scrutiny of their case and conduct. They were proved wrong. Our client went from almost accepting an interim suspension to achieving no order at all.”
AH said:
“No words would do justice in explaining the kind of service I received from the Kings View Chambers. I was represented by Barrister Stephen McCaffrey for my recent IO Hearing. Stephen and his team treated me with kindness and compassion throughout this rough time.
“As you can imagine after waiting for over a year to finally give my response in defence of some serious allegations I was frustrated, stressed out and close to having a mental breakdown. Just after my first conversation with Stephen I immediately felt better about the upcoming hearing, I was feeling positive about being able to move forward and I could actually finally see having my name being cleared of these false allegations.
“He was able to tear apart the so called evidence that was presented to support these allegations, and proved to the panel that the IO application should be rejected, as the evidence did not align or prove any facts of the allegations. The panel concluded with rejecting the IO application, no restrictions were applied and I can continue to practice as normal.
“I honestly could not have hoped for a better outcome. From the bottom of my heart I want to thank Stephen, Catherine and Sarah from the Kings View Chambers for assisting me in getting my life back.”
Is legal representation the answer?
It is widely accepted and proven that legal representation makes a real difference to the outcome of investigations and results in lesser sanctions for doctors.
What is also unquestionably clear is that GMC investigations and MPTS hearings are complex, daunting, prolonged and legalistic leaving doctors stressed and anxious. Where legal advice and representation can have the biggest impact on this, is helping doctors understand the process, what to expect and how to engage with the GMC during an investigation and hearing.
Research has shown that registrant’s engagement and legal representation can impact on decisions about seriousness, and that the lack of legal representation has been identified as being associated with more severe sanctions outcomes in fitness to practise cases, stating:
“Legal representation was seen as important by participants because legal advice could support and guide registrants through the FtP process, which is complex and legalistic. Legal advice was seen as important in aiding registrants to understand regulators’ expectations, especially in terms of the need for registrants to demonstrate insight and perhaps to show evidence of remediation activities. Lack of legal representation was, therefore, seen to potentially have an impact in terms of the seriousness of the outcome for registrants who are perhaps unaware of how to present their case to best effect.”
A compassionate approach to legal representation
The right legal advice and representation is not just about the legalities and technicalities of a case. Our barristers fully understand the stress and anxiety that doctors experience during prolonged GMC investigations.
We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.
We never lose sight of the human aspects of FtP investigations and hearings. We will always give an open and honest assessment of cases, but we will marry that with an approach that also supports health and care professionals through the duration of a case.
“I was not optimistic about the case, I felt that it is a lost case that we couldn’t do much about and especially just before the start of the trial I lost my confidence and was very nervous. Mr McCaffrey was there to prove me wrong. He turned everything around in a victorious , panegyric manner. I was stunned.” – CL
Catherine is professional, empathic and very knowledgeable. She provided all the necessary assistance throughout the long thorough investigation. – AR
A colleague recommended me to Catherine. She was very experienced , professional, empathetic , non-judgemental and listened to me. – Mel
I found myself consumed with dark thoughts, isolated and afraid. Stephen worked with me and slowly but surely formulated a plan not to just to fight my case and win, but to build me back up bit by bit so as to prepare me to face external scrutiny and present with confidence to panels where this was necessary. – FJ
What you can Expect when Instructing Kings View
All clients are entitled to an initial, no obligation and free telephone consultation about their case. During this consultation, we will outline the stages and next steps, including indicative timeframes and fixed price quotations for preparation and representation and confirmed in writing at each and every stage.
We understand that timescales are entirely dependent on the stage you are at in proceedings, what work needs to be done and dictated by internal investigations or hearing dates. We always meet those timescales however should more time be needed, then we will apply for such on your behalf and with your permission.
Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.
More News & Articles
General Dental Council close case with no further action
The General Dental Council has closed its investigation into our clients fitness to practise with no further action.
GMC’s duty of care. Is legal representation the answer?
The position on the GMC’s duty of care is now unquestionably clear. We look at the value of legal representation to assist doctors with the stress and anxiety associated with investigations.
Does the GMC have a duty of care to doctors under investigation?
In Suresh & Ors v GMC, the Court examined the GMC’s duty of care and Human Rights Act obligations for doctors under investigation.