This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Transcript of Hearing'.

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Health and Care Professions Council
At
405 Kennington Road,
London, SE11 4PT
Friday, 10 March 2017
IN THE MATTER OF MR MATTHEW GEARY
REGISTRATION NO.  PA31560

RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE
CONDUCT AND COMPETENCE COMMITTEE
IN PUBLIC SESSION

PROFESSOR IAN HUGHES
(Chair)
MS GILLIAN SEAGER
(Lay Partner)
MR HUW SIMMONDS
(Paramedic)
PRESENTING OFFICER
MS LAURA RYAN
LEGAL ASSESSOR
MR ASHLEY SERR
HEARING OFFICER
MS SOPHIE WING
The Registrant attended and was represented by Mr Simon Hoyle
Transcript Produced by Ubiqus
7th Floor, 61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Telephone: 0207 269 0370

(At 10.09 am)
CHAIR:  Okay.  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome to this HCPC hearing
in the case of Mr Mathew Geary.  Start off with some introductions.  My name is
Ian Hughes.  I’m a lay member of the Panel, and I’ll be chairing this hearing.  On
my left is – 
MR SIMMONDS:  My name’s Huw Simmonds, HCPC registered paramedic.  Good
morning.
CHAIR:  And on my right – 
MS SEAGER:  Good morning.  My name’s Gillian Seager and I’m the lay member.
CHAIR:  If we just run round the room so everyone knows who everyone is and briefly
what their role is.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes.  My name’s Ashley Serr.  I’m the Legal Assessor, so I
provide legal advice to the Panel on law and practice, but I don’t actually make
the decision.
HEARINGS OFFICER:  Good morning.  My name is Sophie Wing.  I’m the Hearings
Officer for the Health and Care Professions Council.  A quick health and safety
announcement that there are no fire alarm tests scheduled.  If a fire alarm does
sound, please follow myself and the appropriate fire wardens through the nearest
marked fire exits, and if everyone could please make sure that their mobile phones
are turned off or on silent.  Thank you.
REGISTRANT:  Good morning.  My name’s Matthew Geary.  I’m a paramedic.
MR HOYLE:  You are still, aren’t you?  Good morning.  Simon Hoyle.  I am the
representative of Mr Geary.  I have been throughout the entire conduct of these
proceedings, including the High Court appeal.  
CHAIR:  Is there anything that you – I mean, we are, in a sense, familiar with each other. 
Is there anything you need to change or alter to help you better present your case?
MR HOYLE:  No, sir, not at all.  Thank you for asking.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Good morning.  I’m Laura Ryan.  I’m the Presenting Officer
on behalf of the HCPC.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Next we have, I think, members of the press present.

MEMBER OF THE PRESS:  Yes.
CHAIR:  Yes, okay.  Can I just remind you of HCPC practices about press and recording
and all the rest of it, yes?  Okay.  Thank you.  Okay.  I think probably the best
thing to do to start with is just to deal with the paperwork, and we have a
paperwork bundle from the HCPC, and that is in fact in two parts.  The first bit,
which is paginated 1 to 265, we’re going to call bundle A.  Have we all got that?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes.  Yes, thank you.
MR HOYLE:  No, sir.  Mine only goes up to 202.  
CHAIR:  The second bit goes up to 202.
MR HOYLE:  I’m sorry, did you say 165 or 265?
CHAIR:  It’s split – the bundle itself is split into two parts.  The first part we’re going to
call bundle A and goes from 1 to 265, and then it starts again.
MR HOYLE:  Sorry, sir, could I just ask you that, 1 to 265 or 165?
CHAIR:  1 to 265, and then it starts again at page 1.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  I must admit actually I’ve not got that either.
MR HOYLE:  Ah yes, sir, I see now.  I do see.
CHAIR:  Which is why we’re going to have to split it, because if we want to refer to a
page number we need to know if it’s the first page number or the second page. 
This is why we’re going to call the second bit bundle B, perhaps unsurprisingly,
and it’s paginated 1 to 202.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Can I clarify, is the bundle A you’re referring to the one that
is entitled ‘Sanction Hearing’ and the bundle B is the ‘Final Hearing’?
CHAIR:  Yes.  This is indeed entitled ‘Sanction Hearing’, and then we have a second
bundle, which is tagged on the back of that, which is entitled ‘Final Hearing’, but
since these are both paginated starting at 1 we just need to distinguish between
them.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes.  Thank you.
CHAIR:  So it’s going to be A and B.  In addition, the Panel has received some additional
paperwork, and that additional paperwork we’re going to start by calling bundle
C.  And there’s an email dated 5 May 2016 that starts ‘Dear Mr Hoyle’, and we’re

going to call that page 1.  Do we all have this?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes.
CHAIR:  This is C1.  And then we have a Professional Standards Authority sheet with a
picture on the front, which we’re going to call page 2, and then there’s some text
which follows, which starts at 6.22, and we’re going to call that page 3.  So those
are the paperwork that the Panel has received.  We’ve also received via email
transcripts of previous hearings, just to put that on record.  Okay.  Is there any
other paperwork that either party intends to rely on?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  No, not from the HCPC’s point of view.
MR HOYLE:  No, sir.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  In which case then, since the Registrant is here
and represented, we don’t need to deal with service, and there is an issue which I
would like to raise.  Are there any other preliminary applications?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir, there will be.
CHAIR:  Okay.
MR HOYLE:  The purpose of – 
CHAIR:  Would you like to go – is there anything from the HCPC in preliminary
matters?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  No, we’re ready to proceed.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Do you want to proceed with that preliminary application now?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir, I do, if you will.  The reason why we’re here today is because the
previous hearing was adjourned.  The purpose of that adjournment was to seek
clarification on an issue which I rightly raised, in relation to the Legal Assessor
who sat through the original proceedings having no practising certificate. 
Mr Leong, Gary Leong, of counsel was invited in, and he stated it was difficult for
him to be able to ascertain the legal position because it was complex and it also
had wide ranging ramifications upon the wider legal profession.
 
 He did say that the statute that had been quoted in the Health Professions Order
2001 in relation to Legal Assessors had been superseded by the Legal Services
Act 2007, and that related to reserved legal activity, where a reserved legal

activity means activity which can only be carried out by a solicitor or barrister,
and anybody without a practising certificate, or without a qualification and a
practising certificate who does that work commits an offence, and obviously will
face disciplinary proceedings as well for holding out.  That is the term that is used.
 It is very similar to the only offence which lies on the Health Professions Order
2001, which is purporting to be on the register when you are not.  Obviously if
you took legal advice from someone who was not duly authorised or qualified to
give it, then that invalidates the procedures, because the whole procedure is
fundamentally flawed at its root.  
 
 I raised that, and the HCPC did not afford me the courtesy of informing me what
their findings were, and I found out five minutes ago from Ms Ryan.  I haven’t
been given the full detail of why they think there isn’t a problem.  However, my
enquiries have led me to discover that there is another Legal Assessor who has sat
on 395 cases since 2007 who does not have a practising certificate.  I do not know
him.  I have never met him, and I do not know of his work.  Therefore, there could
be no implied malice when I say that my intention is now to report this issue to the
relevant enforcing authorities, because there is something I believe is seriously
wrong, and that is, having adduced both Legal Services Act 2007 and also the
guidance on practising certificates issued by both the Bar Council and also the
Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  They have guidance on
when you do and do not need a practising certificate, and what work you should
and should not do, and what title you should hold or should not hold.  
 
 So it is still my position that, regardless of the submissions that I’m going to – I
know what your decision will be, but I’m going to make it on the public record,
because obviously the transcript of this may be used in future proceedings.  You
are still independent.  You still have the right to make decisions of your own in
relation to whether or not the hearing you sat through a year ago was actually
lawful.  So I’m inviting you now to consider whether or not this case should
proceed, or whether or not you should direct that the HCPC withdraws its case
because of illegality.

 
 As I say, the HCPC are being less than helpful in communicating this – their
findings, and certainly I don’t know the detail of the findings, but they usually
adopt a siege mentality when challenged.  So if the case goes ahead today, as I
imagine that it will, I reserve the right, on the basis of the application that I have
made today and the submissions that I made at the previous hearing, to make an
application to such court as necessary to have the proceedings and any sanction as
a result of those proceedings deemed unlawful, and for Mr Geary to be
compensated accordingly.  That will be no reflection upon yourself, sir, because
you are an independent Panel and you are entitled to find what facts you intend to
rely upon, and make a decision accordingly and hand that decision down.  But I
would ask you to take a short time to consider whether or not there is a danger that
these new proceedings today are at risk of similarly being unlawful.
 
 Now, I am aware of the previous position held by one member of the Panel.  I was
pulled up for saying the name last time, so I won’t do again, but obviously there
is, within your joint knowledge, a particular scope of knowledge that may lend
itself to giving you rise to share the same concerns that I have.  So, sir, I invite you
to consider whether or not this hearing is legal or unlawful.
CHAIR:  Okay.  So if I’ve understood correctly – I’m just trying to encapsulate what –
the nature of the application, which is for us to consider, in the light of the
circumstances which were discussed at the previous hearing on the – in January
this year, whether or not this hearing is lawful and whether the last hearing was
lawful, and therefore whether we should proceed or not.  Is that the – 
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir, because – 
CHAIR:  – core of the application?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.  If the initial hearing a year ago was unlawful, then any appeal
from it is unlawful, and any direction that comes from that appeal that the case
must be remitted for redetermination is necessarily also unlawful, due to
procedural irregularity in relation to an essential advisor to the Panel not holding
the necessary qualification.
CHAIR:  Okay.

MR HOYLE:  Thank you, sir.
CHAIR:  And I think my understanding is that if this hearing goes ahead then – and has
an outcome, I think there is an automatic right of appeal to the High Court that’s
encapsulated within the findings of any Panel that does continue.  So your
reservation of your right to appeal etc I think will be automatically taken care of in
the judgment that any – if this Panel went ahead it would produce.  I’m struggling
trying to – 
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.  The situation is that we reserve the right to take the case to such
court as we see fit.  Now, that not – necessarily may not be the High Court to
appeal against a sanction.
CHAIR:  I see.  Okay.
MR HOYLE:  We may be very well satisfied with the sanction.  That all depends on the
outcome, but obviously if we are dissatisfied with the sanction then that is a
further ground of appeal.  However, in relation to everything that is proceeded
today, Mr Geary has been put to substantial cost and claims of tens of thousands
of pounds have been made by the Professional Standards Authority, and we argue
that, in light of what I know or what we know, he is not liable for those costs.  So
indeed now that a certificate – a costs certificate has been issued, we would
challenge it on those grounds, and – 
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Sorry, costs that the High Court ordered?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  So there was an order for costs against your – against Mr Geary at
the High Court, was there?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, there was, sir.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  By the – on behalf of the Professional Standards Authority or –
and/or the HCPC?
MR HOYLE:  Both.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  So both asked for costs against your client?
MR HOYLE:  Mmm.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  What was the basis of that costs application, just out of interest?

It’s not clear on the record.
MR HOYLE:  What I won’t do, sir, is discuss that whilst there’s press in here.  That’s
something that’s private to Mr Geary.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well, I don’t think it is.  If it was part of the record – if it was
heard in open court at the High Court then it’s a matter of public record, isn’t it?
MR HOYLE:  There was no figure put on it during the – 
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes.  I’m not overly worried about the figure.  What was the basis
for why it was said your client should pay any of the costs.  
MR HOYLE:  Quite simply because he lost.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Right, because he took an active part in the proceedings, in
essence.
MR HOYLE:  Yes.  I represented him.  I was given rights of audience that day.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Right.  Okay.  Yes, thank you.
MR HOYLE:  He successfully challenged the vast majority of the blunderbuss that was
fired in his direction, and on the day the majority of the grounds of appeal were
withdrawn by a counsel for the PSA before we even commenced.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes, that – sorry, I just wanted to clarify that.
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Ms Ryan, do you have any – you’ve heard the application, which I tried
to summarise and put into a nutshell, bearing in mind there was a lot of
background to that.  Do you have any comments on that application?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes.  If I can say at the outset that the HCPC’s position is that
they wish to invite the Panel to proceed today and move on to the position of the
redetermination of sanction.  In relation to the previous adjournment, the HCPC
sought legal advice.  The HCPC are satisfied with the validity of the previous
decision and don’t have any concerns in relation to that.  What I would say is that
if there are any ongoing issues in relation to that that wish to be raised, this isn’t
actually the forum for that.  The remit of the Panel today is the redetermination of
sanction, and not whether these proceedings were previously lawful or not.  That
is something for another forum.  So the position is that if there is any challenge to

the lawfulness of the previous decision or anything in relation to that, that should
be made to an alternative port, which can be done without you adjourning these
proceedings.
 
 You’ll be aware from the decision of the High Court on the previous occasion that
the judge was anxious that we should proceed to re-determine the sanction as soon
as practicable, and that’s another reason why I’d invite you to proceed today.  But
certainly I think in terms of the application to not proceed because the previous
decision was unlawful, the HCPC say it was lawful and that this isn’t the forum to
challenge that.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Thank you.  I’ll just find out if my colleagues have any questions, either
for Mr Hoyle or for yourself.  Do you have any questions on this application?  Do
you have any questions on this application?  Okay.  Is there any legal advice at
this point?
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes.  In my view the law is absolutely clear in this regard.  The
decision was promulgated by this Panel on all matters, including facts, grounds,
impairment and sanction, on the previous occasion, January of 2016.  That was
then subject to an appeal by the Professional Standards Authority, as perhaps the
PSA was entitled to do.  As a result of that appeal, which – my understanding of
reading the decision of Mr Justice Silber, Mr Geary supported the position of this
Panel, see paragraph 38, page 23 of bundle 1.  It supported this and certainly no
point was taken that in fact the previous decision was ultra vires in some way
because it wasn’t properly constituted.  
 
 As a result of that appeal, Mr Justice Silber ordered that this matter be remitted to
the same Panel of the Competence – Conduct and Competence Committee for
redetermination as to sanction as soon as practicable.  So for those reasons if there
was a point about the – whether this Panel was properly constituted or the Legal
Assessor – whether the Legal Assessor was properly constituted, that time has
passed.  Your job is to do, in essence, what the High Court told you to do, I think,
which is to re-determine the question as to sanction and sanction alone.  There is
of course a right of appeal against this decision to the High Court, and that’s of

course a matter for the parties and for the PSA if anybody wants to take that
appeal, but for now it’s quite clear from the order of the High Court that this
matter now, with the same Panel, has to be re-determined purely as to the question
of sanction.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Do you have any questions for the Legal
Assessor?  Do you have any questions for the Legal Assessor?  Do you have any
comments on the legal advice?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir, just the one, which is the position as advanced by the HCPC is
they’ve taken legal advice and they’ve determined that there is no issue.  You
would have thought, given the importance and the significance of the issue, they
might have put their reasoning in writing, presented it to this Panel and indeed to
myself.  They haven’t done, so we’ve only got their word that they don’t see
anything’s wrong.  They haven’t set out their reasoning and explained why the
Legal Services Act 2007 and the issue of practising certificates does not apply to
Legal Assessors who sit at the HCPC.  Thank you, sir.  
CHAIR:  Thank you.  Do you have any comments on the legal advice?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  No, thank you.
CHAIR:  Okay.  In that case then I think the Panel will retire to consider this, and we will
be back with you as soon as we can.  Legal Assessors are allowed to join Panels
for their discussion now, as well as for – whereas before they were only allowed
to join Panels after a decision had been made.  I think this Panel would be happy
for the Legal Assessor to join us for this decision, if the Legal Assessor is happy
with that.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes, and to be – to assure the parties that I take – although I may
join the Panel from time to time and I will assist in the drafting of this decision, I
take no part in the decision, and any legal advice or fresh legal advice that I give
to the Panel I will then give again in open hearing and give the parties an
opportunity to comment on.  
MR HOYLE:  May I just ask, sir, you say there has been a change and Legal Assessors
may now join in discussions.  Can you tell me to the best of your knowledge when

that occurred and whether or not that was in force when the initial hearing took
place?
CHAIR:  I really couldn’t tell you.  All I know is that within the last year, I would say,
HCPC guidance, which previously was that Legal Assessors could join Panels
after Panels had made decisions, was modified, and the advice then became that,
should the Panel and the Legal Assessor agree that the Legal Assessor would be
present during the Panels discussions, that was permitted.  I cannot tell you more
than that.  I do not know a date when that happened.
MR HOYLE:  In which case, sir, do you think that you could direct that the HCPC
deliver up that practice note with the date clear on it please?  I would like to see it.
HEARINGS OFFICER:  Would you like me to make some enquiries, sir, with regard to
where that – 
CHAIR:  If you could make an enquiry, but that change in practice did happen – I just – I
don’t know the date when it did.  Can we leave that –
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.  I don’t have an issue with today.
CHAIR:  Right.
MR HOYLE:  I am just trying to work out whether or not it may have been an issue back
then.  
CHAIR:  We will try and get that information for you.
MR HOYLE:  Thank you, sir.
CHAIR:  Okay.  We’ll adjourn now, and we’ll be back with you as soon as we can.  
(The Panel were in camera from 10.31 a.m. to 10.51 a.m.)
CHAIR:  Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we’re back again, and what we have decided is that
we will proceed with this hearing at this time, and the reasons for that will be
handed down in a written copy at the end of the hearing.  
MR HOYLE:  Thank you, sir.
CHAIR:  Okay.  There is one issue that the Panel would like to raise, in that we would
just like some legal advice and to give people an opportunity to comment on that

legal advice.  The issue for the Panel is it needs to understand whether it is
deciding sanction on the basis of the conditions which existed at the time of the
previous hearing, or whether it is deciding sanction on the basis of the conditions
which exist now, because those conditions are different, as I understand it.  So
what I’m going to do is to ask for some legal advice on that, and then give both
parties an opportunity to comment on or make whatever comments they wish
about this issue, but I think it would be helpful for the Panel to have resolved this
issue and decided exactly when it is, in terms of the, sort of, base date for the
decision on sanction.  Legal advice.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes.  Well, returning back to the order of Mr Justice Silber, which
is at page 38 of the bundle, as I reminded the Panel previously, the scope of this
rehearing that’s been fixed by the High Court is that the matter be remitted to the
same Panel of this Conduct and Competence Committee for re-determination as to
sanction as soon as practicable.  So it’s quite clear that the only matter that you are
to consider is sanction, and the assumption of course – the presumption is that
Mr Geary is impaired.  In fact, he is impaired, his practice is impaired, because the
previous finding of impairment stands and isn’t to be disturbed.  
 
 Having said that, it’s my view that quite clearly the High Court had the view that
Mr Geary would have a full opportunity to address you with submissions through
Mr Hoyle, and to provide evidence if necessary, in respect of the current position
vis a vis sanction.  So I think that the correct position to hold is that it is the
current position, but it’s the current position on sanction and nothing else, and that
would open the door for any appropriate evidence and submissions to be given by
Mr – through Mr Hoyle.  And it’s my view that if he so wishes it’s open to Mr
Hoyle to take the Panel back, if he wants to, to transcripts of submissions made
previously, or in fact that the Panel can refresh their memories as to anything
that’s been said previously as well, and that can also be considered.  It’s not
invalid.  That’s the position.
CHAIR:  Okay, so in a nutshell what you’re saying is that sanction should be determined
on the basis of the situation as it is now, not the situation as it was.

LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Correct.
CHAIR:  Yes.  Okay.  I’ll just ask my colleagues if they have any comments – if they
have any questions for the Legal Assessor.  Okay.  Any comments on our legal
advice or any other remarks?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.  Mr Serr has intuitively forecasted how I intend to present my
case today, and I’m in full agreement with his advice, as it concurs with my own
view, sir.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  And I agree with the legal advice given.
MR HOYLE:  What a relief.
CHAIR:  I make no further comment, other than to say that – thank you very much for
that, in which case the Panel is clear what its job is.  Now I think we just need to
determine how we’re going to proceed.  We’ve heard from the Legal Assessor,
and obviously there are a number of ways forward.  We need to hear any
submissions on sanction, and that may or may not involve presenting evidence
under oath personally by the Registrant or not, and I would like to have some
comment as to how you might wish to proceed in terms of presenting your case on
sanction.
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.  Obviously not knowing how this case was going to pan out, due
to the lack of communication from the HCPC, this hearing could have gone in
many different directions, hence the reason why we did not produce a witness
statement, because we did not know what to put in it, whether or not it was going
to concentrate solely on the issue of the Legal Assessor and the position under the
Legal Services Act or something else.  Well, clearly it’s now something else, and
there is no challenge to the fact that we are going to be looking at the current
position.
 
 What I intend to do – and this will not, you’ll be pleased to hear, take me a great
deal of time.  I intend to take you through some of the documents in this bundle.  I
then intend to draw your attention to some of the case law that was referred to in
the PSA’s appeal and Judge Sir Stephen Silber’s judgment.  There will then come
the point where I will invite you to consider what sanction or what – whether or

not you ought to leave well alone, whether or not you ought to do something else,
and indeed you will need to affirm or to adduce the current position with
Mr Geary.  And in doing so what I would propose to do, without a prepared
witness statement, for the reasons I’ve given, is to have him on oath.  We will
establish his current position today.  He has his CPD file.  He will be able to tell
you how he has continued to comply with the conditions of practice, even though
those conditions of practice were actually removed.  He currently sits before you
as a man with no sanction, and has done since July last year, but nevertheless he
wisely continued with the conditions of practice, in the hope or expectation that
this Panel would not interfere with its decision and make any sanction reflect its
original decision, based upon my submissions.
 
 So that is how I intend to run my case.  The only other suggestion I might have is
of course this is still the HCPC bringing its case against Mr Geary.  Obviously the
issue of impairment is already dealt with and cannot be disturbed, as Mr Serr has
quite rightly said, but the HCPC will still have submissions to make on sanction,
and I think it would be appropriate for Ms Ryan to go first.  That would therefore
afford her the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Geary and make comment on my
closing submissions.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Is there any legal advice or comment on that way forward?
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  No, I think that’s appropriate.  It’s usual, isn’t it, for the Presenting
Officer to go first at this stage.  I’m right, Mr Hoyle, there is no burden though of
course at this stage on the HCPC.  We’re past the facts and grounds stage indeed
in fact, but it’s right that if your client does give live evidence then he’ll be open
to cross-examination.  It is normally appropriate, or it’s possible, for you to make
submissions and update the Panel through that.  I leave it in the hands of the
Chairman as to how – as to what – the best way the Panel would like it done, but
just to remind you that it’s not an absolute necessity that the Registrant give
evidence.
MR HOYLE:  Sir, what I’m really hoping for today is just to see through a swift and
efficient disposal of this, because this is not got to be today a contentious hearing. 

There are no matters of contention that I need to challenge.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Has Ms Ryan had the – have you indicated to Ms Ryan, given her
an update as to what Mr Geary’s been doing?
MR HOYLE:  No, I haven’t, because, as I say, the HCPC have stonewalled me again
since the decision or the adjournment last – 
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Okay.
MR HOYLE:  So if they wanted to establish and open up a line of communication, share
information, it was down to them.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Okay.  Well – 
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Maybe if I can make a suggestion.  I’ve prepared a
chronology just to assist the Panel in terms of how we’ve reached this point.  I can
open, as it were, with that.  It’s very, very brief.  It’s then perhaps to hand over to
the Registrant, and if he wants to give live evidence, and then perhaps there can be
short submissions after he has presented his case, as it were, from myself and
from the Registrant’s representative, perhaps.
CHAIR:  That seems a reasonable way forward.
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir, and I envisage that my submissions will be based upon what
Ms Ryan brings up in challenge, if indeed there is any sort of challenge mounted,
sir.
CHAIR:  Okay.  I’m aware it’s now 11 o’clock.  However, we did have a short break. 
Does anyone need a break at this point, or can we go straight to the submissions?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  No, I’m happy to proceed.
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.
CHAIR:  Yes.  Okay.  In that case then, HCPC.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Thank you.  So all I propose to do to assist you, because this
is slightly unusual, in that we are not going straight into sanction having recently
heard the matter, is to just provide you with a very, very brief chronology as to
how we are at this point.  So as you’ll recall, on 15 December 2014 Mr Geary was
convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of failing to discharge a relevant duty. 
The sentence imposed was one of eight months, which was suspended for 24

months, and he was also ordered to do 240 hours’ unpaid work, which had to be
completed within a period of 12 months.
 
 Following on from that, there was an HCPC hearing before the Conduct and
Competence Committee on 8 December 2015, and that concluded on 7 and 8
January 2016, and the decision is at page 252 of the bundle.  I don’t propose to
take you through that, as you are the Panel that made the decision, but you will be
aware that your finding was that the allegation that his fitness to practise was
impaired by virtue of that criminal conviction was well founded.  As a result, you
imposed a sanction of a two year conditions of practice order.
 
 Following on from that, the Professional Standards Authority appealed against the
decision under section 29.  It was a section 29 appeal brought on the basis that the
sanction imposed was not sufficient for public protection.  A section 29 appeal
can be brought where it is considered that the decision is not sufficient for public
protection, and the considerations behind that are whether it protects the health,
safety and wellbeing of the public, whether it maintains public confidence in the
profession, and whether it maintains proper standards and conduct for the
profession.  Having heard the appeal, the conclusion of Sir Stephen Silber can be
found at page 26 of the bundle.  His entire judgment is between pages 13 and 30.
 
 In conclusion, when returning to consider your sanction you must give appropriate
weight to the wider public interest, not just the deterrent effect on other
Registrants, but also on the reputation of the profession and the public confidence
in the regulatory process.  And so at this point you’ll be invited to hear any
evidence that is brought on behalf of the Registrant, and then sanctions from
myself and the representative on sanction, and then retire to consider the matter
further.  Thank you.  
CHAIR:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Do you have any points for clarification?  Okay. 
Mr Hoyle – 
MR HOYLE:  Thank you, sir.
CHAIR:  – do you wish now to put – to make an opening statement, or do you wish to put
Mr Geary on the stand?  How would you like to proceed?

MR HOYLE:  I would wish to make an opening statement.  I would then like to take the
Panel through the documents, and then through the authorities.  Then I would like
to have Mr Geary take the oath and give evidence on his current position in
relation to work, conditions of practice and obviously the issue relating to his
conviction.  And then I will invite Ms Ryan and yourself to ask questions of
Mr Geary.  From that point you will then direct how the case will proceed,
because obviously there’ll be advice from the Legal Assessor.  So that’s how I
propose to go.  
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Shall we hear from the Registrant first, and – 
MR HOYLE:  No, I’d like to do the Registrant after I have – 
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well, that’s not the normal way in which these matters proceed. 
Normally there would – we’d be hearing from the Registrant.  There will be
cross-examination if you’d adduced the evidence, cross-examination if necessary,
and then closing submissions.  
MR HOYLE:  This is a rather unusual case though, isn’t it, Mr Serr?
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well, why is it that you want to give submissions first and then
hear from the Registrant?  Presumably you’re going to want to then address the
Panel on the evidence that’s been given.  
MR HOYLE:  I will address the Panel on the evidence that’s been given, but first of all
we need to set the background.  We need to put the context.  The Panel need to
understand why we’re here fully, at least – 
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well, the Panel do know why we’re here.  I can assure you of that.
MR HOYLE:  From our point of view that may be slightly different.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  No, the Panel do know why we’re here.  Well, it’s a matter for
you, but from my legal advice the normal position is that the Registrant will give
live evidence, be cross-examined if so – if necessary, and then we’d hear
submissions.  
CHAIR:  Okay.  You’ve heard that legal advice.  Do you have any comments on it?
MR HOYLE:  Yes, sir.  I would like to be drawn to the law which states that that’s an
absolute necessity, a given, and a must.  If there is no law and it’s just simply

common practice then I’m going to ask that you depart from common practice to
allow me to put Mr Geary’s case in the best way possible and for – certainly the
way that I’ve rehearsed it.  
CHAIR:  HCPC, do you have any comments?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  I agree with the advice.  It is typical that live evidence is
heard and then submissions are made.
CHAIR:  Okay.  The Panel will retire and we will consider this, and we will be back with
you as soon as we can.  I don’t think we’re going to be terribly long, so – 
MR HOYLE:  We’ll stay, sir.  
(The Panel were in camera from 11.07 a.m. to 11.10 a.m.)
CHAIR:  Okay, the Panel has decided that it will hear first from Mr Geary under oath and
then it will be up to you then to make any comments that you wish after that.  So
the Panel – if you wish to call Mr Geary he will now move into the witness box.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Mr Hoyle, can I remind you that if there are any matters of health
or other private matters that Mr Geary wants to refer to, you should ask the Panel
to move into private session because there are no…
MR HOYLE:  Yes, thank you.
THE REGISTRANT, affirmed
CHAIR:  Mr Geary, please sit yourself down, make yourself comfortable.  
REGISTRANT: Thank you.
CHAIR:  You’ve got some water there.  I’m not going to go round with introductions; I
think you know who we all are and what our role is.  There is a pile of papers
there, which it may be that your representative may want to take you to.  Is there
anything else we can do to make you more comfortable or better able to give your
evidence?
REGISTRANT:  No, I’m good thank you.

CHAIR:  Okay, Mr Hoyle.
Examined by MR HOYLE
Q. 
Thank you sir.  Well Mr Geary, obviously, we both feel that the order of batting is
somewhat prejudicial now, but we will press on.  And I am now having to think
how best to approach this.  You are currently registered as a paramedic.
A. 
I am, yes.
Q. 
And you are registered currently without sanction, is that correct?
A. That’s 
correct.
Q. 
And that sanction was quashed by the High Court.
A. Correct.
Q. 
That was in July last year?
A. Mm.
Q. 
Okay.  So, since July and February you have been without sanction.
A. Yes.
Q. 
Have you committed any offences in that time?
A. 
I have not, no.
Q. 
Have you had any complaints made about your fitness to practise either in relation
to your competence or misconduct?
A. 
I haven't, no.
Q. 
Have there been any concerns raised about you by enforcing authorities or police?
A. No.
Q. No. 
 
CHAIR:  Mr Geary, it’s difficult because you're being asked questions over there but you
need to reply to the Panel, if you can try to remember that.
A. Okay, 
yeah.
MR HOYLE:  Now, at the conclusion of the original hearing, you were given a two year
conditions of practice and that involved a number of things but in particular one
of them was being mentored by a fellow paramedic.

A. That’s 
correct.
Q. 
Who is that?
A. 
It’s a gentleman called John Flynn.
Q. 
Okay.  Now, the obligation was that you carry out those conditions of practice for
2 years after, which you or the sanction would be made, i.e. the determination
whether or not to fully restore your registration without a black mark against it. 
Now, in July, so only a matter of some 5 or 6 months after the determination was
made, that was quashed.  Have you however, continued with those conditions of
practice?
A. 
I have, yes.
Q. 
And are you able to evidence that?
A. 
Yes, the folder in front of me is the work I've been doing.
Q. 
Have you continued to keep up your CPD?
A. 
Yes, I have.
Q. 
Continual professional developments?
A. Yes.
Q. 
And are you able to evidence this?
A. 
Yes again, that's the folder in front of you.
Q. 
So in essence, you have carried on, even though you are not obliged to do so, with
those conditions of practice up until today.
A. That’s 
correct.
Q. 
Okay.  Have you undertaken any paramedic work?
A. 
I have, yes.
Q. 
Okay if you could just explain what work you have done?
A. 
I've been working for a company down in Bristol dealing with school events; it’s
rather a high profile school, covering Rugby events, American football.  I've been
working as a two man crew.  I've also been working on my own without any
complaints or problems or issues.
Q. 
And just to reiterate, one of the conditions of practice were you were not to work
single-handed unless your mentor determined that you were able to; did he make

that decision?
A. Yes.
Q. 
Okay and just to reaffirm, the company you’ve been working for is Community
Paramedics?
A. Correct.
Q. 
And that is run by Mr Gary Eaves, who is a witness you are very familiar with. 
Have you applied for any jobs, other permanent jobs?
A. 
I did initially, early on.
Q. 
And what was the – what got in the way of your successful application?
A. 
Unfortunately, it was the press coverage.  I did have a couple of people saying
they would be happy to take me on, but because there’s a bit of a black cloud if
you like, hanging over me, they would be a bit hesitant at that time, which is
something that’s interrupted gaining more work during that time.
Q. 
Indeed, after the adjournment of the previous hearing we were accosted by the
press outside, weren’t we.
A. 
Yes, we were, yes.
Q. 
And within 24 hours, a sweeping and defamatory press report was issued on the
internet and in the printed press, is that correct?
A. 
That’s correct, yes.
Q. 
Did we take action to have that dealt with?
A. 
We did, yes.
Q. 
Was what was written suggesting that you received a two years’ condition of
practice as a result of you being charged with manslaughter?
A. 
It was, yes.
Q. 
And did they correct it immediately?
A. 
They did, but unfortunately, it still went out in the written press?
Q. 
That matter has not been resolved has it?
A. 
Not as yet no.
Q. 
Do you still wish to continue your paramedic profession?
A. 
I do.  The short term I've been working for Community Paramedics has reaffirmed

the enjoyment that I get from doing the job.  It’s relit the fire if you like, you
know, I've enjoyed working with other people, enjoyed working with the patients
and doing the best for them.
Q. 
In terms of full time occupation, day job, what is it that you're doing?
A. 
I’m currently working in a factory at the moment and trying to do my paramedic
work on the weekends.
Q. 
And your wage?
A. Minimum 
wage.
Q. 
Minimum wage.  What were you earning before as a paramedic?
A. 
With the ambulance service or…
Q. Yes.
A. 
Well, I was on Band 6 so I was working on a responder car.  I can't remember the
wage offhand.
Q. 
And currently, when you're doing the ad hoc paramedic work, what is your wage
there?
A. 
Usually £18 to £20 an hour ranging.
Q. 
Okay and has the particularly the appeal impacted upon your finances?
A. 
Well, it has hugely, yes.
Q. 
And have claims been made against you for tens of thousands of pounds by the
Professional Standards Authority, is that correct?
A. 
That’s correct, yes.
Q. 
Okay.  But nevertheless, you are still determined to return to paramedic practice?
A. 
Yeah.  After everything I've been through, all the press coverage I've had the hate
if you like that’s been directed towards me, I’m still standing here.
Q. 
Were you ever tempted to walk away?
A. 
It’s crossed my mind obviously, but you know, I enjoy being a paramedic and
that’s why I’m still here and that’s why I’m still fighting.
Q. 
Okay Mr Geary, that's all the evidence that – well that’s all the questions I have
for you.  I have no questions for you from the written evidence we have here. 
Obviously, there will be questions now regarding your current position and what

you've done, since the original sanction and since the appeal.  So, I will hand you
over, presumably now, to Ms Ryan. 
Cross-examined by the PRESENTING OFFICER
Q. 
Thank you.  I just want to pick up on couple of points on the evidence you’ve
given so far.  You’ve mentioned about doing paramedic work on the weekends,
can you give us some idea of what that involves, does it involve responding to
emergency calls or is it more your based at an event which is going on?
A. 
It’s event based work so therefore, if I was covering a rugby match I’d be on the
halfway line and then I’d get called onto the pitch if I was required and we’d sort
the patient out from there.
Q. 
And so that’s on your weekends, and does the scope go outside people that are on
the pitch, or is it just the pitch players that you're also helping out?
A. 
It’s anybody that’s required, whether it be the bystanders, parents etc.
Q. 
And it’s children activities as opposed to adults?
A. 
Yeah, children, teenagers, yes.
Q. 
And have you had any situations where you’ve had to sort of deal with something
unexpected or have somebody in the crowd or something?
A. 
I can't really say unexpected.  I mean, during the rugby match I expect sort of head
injuries and head clashes.  I've had a couple of elderly patients if you like, which
I've felt that I've dealt with well.  
Q. 
And are you then responsible for transferring them to hospital if required?
A. 
If required, yes.  They do tend to get the ambulance service in depending on the
situation.  Each case is done on its own merit because obviously, if the medical
cover leaves pitch-side then there’s no medical cover at all, so it’s judged on each
individual patient.
Q. 
And in relation to that work, would there be just two of you per game or is there
say more?
A. 
It just depends on the event of that day.  I mean, for example, there was one day

where there were several rugby matches going on at the same time so I was sort of
clinical lead and we had technicians and different ranks of staff around each pitch.
 And then I've just went to wherever was required.
Q. 
And I don’t know whether enquiries were made but were you employees willing
to provide you with a reference for these proceedings as to what you have been
doing?
A. 
Yes, unfortunately, I haven't got it – he hasn’t produced it as yet, but he has been
more than happy and he has been asking me to work for future events this year. 
So he is happy with what I’m doing.
Q. 
And in relation to that do you know why he wasn’t able to provide it today?
A. 
Unfortunately, I don’t mean this as an excuse; I have had a hell of lot going on in
my personal life.  My partner’s been pregnant, we've had our first child, it was a
difficult pregnancy. I've been trying to juggle lots of things.  Obviously, travelling
down to London on regular basis you know, keeping up to date with my folder. 
There’s no reason for it other than it’s a job that’s on my list.  I've got a ‘to do’ list
on the back of my folder and that's one of them.
Q. 
And just in relation to that how long have you been in that role for?
A. 
Well I started doing event work shortly after I left the ambulance service back in
around August 2012.  I was full time for a couple of years doing private events,
then it tailed off a bit again with the press coverage.  I was always honest with
employers and said ‘Look, this is what’s going on.  This is the process I’m going
through’.  So unfortunately, it tailed off and then I've been able to pick it up again
recently, so it has been intermittent.
Q. 
I just want to ask a few questions in relation to CPD/courses to do with reflection. 
So, what's the sort of things you’ve been doing in terms of keeping your
professional skills up to date?
A. 
Well, I've been seeing John, John Flynn, on a monthly basis.  We've been working
out my strengths, my weaknesses.  I've been doing on-line courses, which have
helped a great deal.  I've been going to a training company who sorted out the
action plan so I could set out the goals I wanted to achieve and doing practical

aspects there as well.
Q. 
You’ve mentioned John Flynn, who is he?
A. 
He’s a paramedic, registered paramedic.
Q. 
No, but who is he to you in terms of you say you’ve been going to him?
A. 
Oh, he was recommended to me and I've been meeting up with him on a regular
basis.  We go through the things I feel are required and he talks to me on what he
thinks I may need.
MR HOYLE:  Sir, I may be able to assist you on that.  
CHAIR:  Sorry?
MR HOYLE: I may be able to assist in that point, Mr Flynn’s position, if that would
help?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  I'm just wondering, is he in some sort of supervisor or mentor
role?  That’s sort of what I’m trying to establish, or is it just an informal
arrangement?
A. 
Well, I suppose it’s an informal arrangement.  He’s a very experienced paramedic.
MR HOYLE:  It may assist sir.  Mr Flynn was someone I represented at the HCPC for a
fitness to practise matter and he was given conditions of practice.  He established
a [inaudible] company with David Poulton; I forget the name of the company.
A. HDP.
MR HOYLE:  HDP Solutions I think it is.  Mr Flynn completed that conditions of
practice and submitted his work to a subsequent Panel, who signed him off as
having complied, Mr Flynn being a friend of mine, also owing me a favour for
representing him.  As soon as Mr Geary was issued with conditions of practice, I
asked him as having first-hand knowledge of what would be expected, and having
already devised a successful route to mentor Mr Geary.  Mr Flynn has some 25
years’ experience in two NHS trusts and he is currently a senior mentor paramedic
with a private company based in Nottinghamshire, although he does also freelance
work elsewhere.  There have been no concerns raised about his ability before and
as I said, he has successfully gone down the route that Mr Geary is currently going
through now.  You didn’t place any conditions on any particular qualification

when you gave the conditions of practice and it was someone suitable.  Mr Flynn,
in our opinion, was somebody suitable.
CHAIR:  Does that clarify?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  I think so.  So he is in the mentor role of the conditions of
practice?
A. Yes, 
yeah.
Q. 
And has he provided something sort of a reflection document in terms of the
mentoring he’s done with you?
A. 
I was doing reflections a long time before I actually met John due to doing my
degree at university, my paramedic degree.  So, we used Gibbs reflective practice
anyway, so I was very used to doing reflections before I met John.  And John was
happy with me carrying on the way I was doing.  It’s a quite commonly used
reflective practice and I felt I was getting the best out of that, using that method.
Q. 
Has he done anything though for the Panel today in terms of reconsidering your
sanction as to how things have been progressing?
A. 
He’s been giving me monthly tasks to actually achieve, which I've been doing. 
We haven't got anything written as such like you suggest.
Q. 
Yes, that's what I mean of course, was there anything that he can comment on how
you have progressed over the last few months?
A. No.
Q. 
Okay.  And how long has he been in the role for you?
A. 
February of last year.
Q. 
And that is separate from the company that you're doing the work for at the
weekends or is it the same?
A. Yes, 
yeah.
Q. 
Okay.  And just dealing with the sorts of things, have you done anything in
particular that you can reference course wise perhaps or online learning that relate
to specifically sort of dealing with patients, dealing with perhaps challenging
patients?
A. 
Yes, I did a quality management online course, which was to do with treatment of

patients, whether it be in hospital or whether it be out of hospital.
Q. 
And just in relation to, obviously, when the Panel are thinking about the sanction
that they're looking at, to what has happened since.  Obviously, you gave evidence
at your previous hearing in relation to your position and your thoughts in relation
to what had happened.  Has that in any way changed or altered.  Have you had any
further thoughts on the incident itself?
A. 
Yes.  I've done a reflective practice at different points as time has gone by.  I feel
now that a lot of what was going on in my home life at that time affected my
thinking, maybe my attitude on that day.  Those have now gone and my home life
is a lot calmer.  I've obviously grown up quite a lot in the last four and a half, five
years.  I've now become a dad.  My attitude, my way of looking at life is
completely different, especially going through all this procedure that I've had to go
through.
Q. 
I don’t have any further questions thank you.
CHAIR:  Okay, do you have anything to redirect at this point?
MR HOYLE:  No, I do not thank you.
CHAIR:  Okay, the Panel may have some questions but we’re going to retire to think
about our questions.  And so there will be a short break here.  I would think
probably it’ll take us 15 minutes to sort out our questions, so if you want a cup of
coffee than that will be fine.  But I just remind you that you are on oath at this
point and therefore you must discuss your evidence with no one in this interlude,
okay.
REGISTRANT:  Yes.
CHAIR:  Okay, we will retire for 15 minutes, thank you.
(The Panel were in camera from 11.37 a.m. until 11.52 a.m.)
CHAIR:  Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we are back again; we do have some questions for
you.   I just remind you that you are still on oath at this point and my professional
colleague is going to start.

Questioned by the PANEL
MR SIMMONDS:  Hello Mr Geary. 
A. Hello.
Q. 
Thank you, could you just tell me how regular the work is that you do when you
say you do the rugby work?
A. 
Obviously, with the event work it does tend to go quieter over the Christmas
period so I started working for him in the autumn of last year.  And then it’s gone
quiet over Christmas and it’s starting to pick up again now.  So there has been a
handful of events since the autumn.
Q. 
Could you, no detail obviously, could you give me and idea of the cross-section of
work that you’ve had?  You’ve had trauma and medical conditions to deal with?
A. 
Recently or when I was working full time as well?
Q. 
No, sort of recently and sort of yes, a little bit of the full time as well; what you've
had since we last sort of saw you really.
A. 
Okay, more recently it’s tended to have been more trauma based obviously with
sporting events; that is the majority of the patients we tend to get.  When I was
full time I was covering a lot of sporting events again which were mainly trauma
based, but there were patients on the medical side as well.
Q. 
All right thank you.  I appreciate you’ve got a big bundle there in front of you.  Do
you have evidence with you of the online courses that you say you’ve done?
A. 
Yes, I have, yes.
Q. 
You’ve got that in there.  And do you have a copy of the reflective practice?  You
said you’ve been doing reflective practice.
A. 
Yeah, at the front yeah.
Q. 
You’ve got that in there, so we will be allowed to see that…
A. 
Of course, yeah.
Q. 
Shortly, if I may.  
CHAIR:  I wonder if – there will be other questions I think involving evidence that may

be available.  Rather than necessary have it all copied, would one way forward be
for some Post-It notes to be put in at the appropriate places that illustrate
particular aspects of evidence, which the Panel could then have a look at in the
bundle, rather than take everything out, photocopy it at times.  Would that be a
reasonable way forward, is that a reasonable way forward?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes, I agree.
CHAIR:  Mr Hoyle is that…
MR  HOYLE:    I  have  no  objections.    How you determine well, how you adduce the
evidence is a matter for you sir.  If that aids you and it’s within our ability to do
so.
CHAIR:  I was thinking that perhaps we will be leading some questions obviously.  They
will refer to particular pieces of paper that may or may not exist.  The ones that do
exist then perhaps over the lunch break we could insert a Post-It or something in
the appropriate page and the Panel could then look at it.
MR HOYLE:  Indeed sir, what I will do then is if you would like to I will commence a
list now of what it is you want to see and we can reconfirm that at the end of your
questions and over the lunch period Mr Geary and I can set to work.  But
certainly, I expect that it will be done well before the conclusion of – the
estimated finish time today in any case.  That will allow you the ability to review
that today, possibly over the weekend, and certainly at your leisure all day on
Monday.  So, it could be that you may wish to just take the bundle as it is and you
may find things in there, which you did not ask for, which you find –
CHAIR:  Yes, I’m just reluctant to copy the whole bundle.
HEARINGS OFFICER:  Sir, just to confirm that anything which the Panel sees will need
to be photocopied at least once by me so it is an exhibit to the case.  So as long as
I know what the Panel have seen and I am able to photocopy all the documents
that have been reviewed by the Panel today.
PRESENTING  OFFICER:    It  is  fair  to  say  that  I  haven't  had  sight  of  any  of  the
documents.
CHAIR:  I’m sorry, say it again.

PRESENTING OFFICER:  I haven't had sight of anything.
CHAIR:  Indeed.  Obviously, there would have to be a fair process, yes.  Does the Legal
Assessor have any comments on this possible way forward?
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  No, I think whatever’s – sorry, I am slightly got lost as to what’s
going to happen, so the Registrant’s going to take this out or is going to…
CHAIR:  Well, we are going to go through some questions, which may ask about the
existence of various documents.  Those are going to be listed by Mr Hoyle and
then, over the lunchbreak there will be some insertion of stickers, which the
Presenting Officer can then have a look at the bundle before we see it and if
there’s any argument we can sort that out.  But then the Panel then, rather than to
have to copy the whole bundle, will look at the particular pages, which have been
posted. 
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Posted, yes.
CHAIR:  Okay, I think we’ve established a way forward then so perhaps you could just
recap on for Mr Hoyle can take the notes of any particular documents that…
MR SIMMONDS:  The documents that are required, it was evidence of the online
courses that Mr Geary’s done and copies of…
MR HOYLE:  I’m sorry, I’m trying to keep up.  Online courses and?
MR SIMMONDS:  And reflective practices.
MR HOYLE:  Reflective practices.
MR SIMMONDS: So that's probably all I’m asking for at the moment.
CHAIR:  So that’s for Mr Simmonds.
MR HOYLE:  Okay, so do have any other?
MR SIMMONDS:  I don’t, no thank you very much.
CHAIR:  Okay, moving over then, do you have any questions?
MS SEAGER:  I do, yes.
CHAIR:  Okay.
MS SEAGER:  Can we turn to page 263 please in bundle A.  
A. Yes.
Q. 
So, it’s just some questions here on the conditions, which I appreciate there was a

change last year, but it’s – you said you were working with the conditions just so
to work through and get clarification as to what you have been doing.  If we look
at number one, on page 263, ‘Remain under the supervision of a workplace
supervisor’.  Is that the person at the weekend paramedic duties, is that who you
are considering is the supervisor?
A. 
John Flynn’s my mentor.  But the gentleman I’m working for, Gary Eaves, he’s a
paramedic as well.  So, I suppose it would be John.
CHAIR:  So, in terms of initial notification to the HCPC, your supervisor officially is?
A. John 
Flynn.
MS SEAGER:  And did you supply those details to the HCPC within one month?
A. 
No, because I wasn’t working at that point.  It wasn’t until the autumn.
Q. 
Until the autumn.
A. Yeah.
Q. 
Right, that’s what I thought okay.  And then turning over, number 6, ‘Working
with your supervisor to formulate a personal development plan’ etc. have you got
any evidence of this?
A. 
Yes, there is my action plan in there.
Q. 
And it talks here, at 6.2, ‘Analysis and understanding the root cause of
deficiencies in your practice or improvements that could be made’.  Can you talk
me through some of those please?
A. 
I suppose analysing and understanding the root cause would be what I mentioned
earlier about having a lot of problems at home, which were causing the
considerable stress at that time.  I think it took me a while to actually understand
that fully, hence things I've said in previous hearings, which have maybe come
across wrong or misunderstood.  It’s because of the suspended sentence and
because of you know, job worries, home worries.  It’s took me a long time to
reflect on all those issues fully.  But I am now at a point and I did have
counselling as well, which I feel I understand how my brain was working on that
day if you like.  And obviously, that’s a deficiency that will never happen again.
Q. 
How could you know it’s not happening again, when you’ve had other problems at

home or something concerning you?
A. 
Because I’m more aware now of how my – how I’m behaving, how I can change
my behaviour.  What I need to do and to put things in place, obviously that was
something which got discussed in my counselling.  A lot of writing went on, a lot
of writing in diaries.  It’s quite enlightening when you do things like that because
you do understand yourself as a person a lot more than I ever did before.  So, I am
a lot better now at identifying issues and resolving compared to what I was
previously.  So I do feel really quite strong in that area now; that I am able to
resolve issues.
Q. 
And how would that transfer into your work life as a paramedic?
A. 
Well, I think I’d have to take every patient as it came.  I think I would have to –
using a holistic approach, which I got taught at university to look at a bigger
picture, look at how the patient may be feeling, he’s feeling, rather than just
identifying the problem.  So my ability to show understanding towards other
people has increased greatly.
Q. 
Okay.  Number 7, ‘Forwarding your personal development plan’ are you saying
that you haven't done that because you started work as a paramedic in the autumn
of last year.
A. Yeah.
Q. 
So, you’ve not done that part, okay.  Number 9, ‘Allow your supervisor to provide
information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out
in the personal development plan’.  Has any of that taken place about your
supervisor providing information?
A. 
I’ll just read it again if you don’t…
Q. 
Yeah of course, yeah.  [Pause for reading]
A. 
No, that hasn’t happened.  Again, that was a difficult time because of the High
Court issue and the fact I wasn’t working early on.
Q. 
So just to be clear yourself, your paramedic work in autumn of last year; that's the
first you did after the previous hearing is it?
A. Yeah, 
yeah.

Q. 
Okay.  So, when did your factory work commence?
A. 
May of last year.
Q. 
Of last year.  
A. 
I was working at a place called Back to Bikes before then.
Q. 
Well, we discussed that, haven't we?
A. 
Yeah, which was the place where I did my community service.  They offered me a
job because I’d done such a good job while I was working there.  Unfortunately,
that place was having financial difficulties and so it let a lot of staff go, clearly
myself unfortunately and that’s why I moved over to the factory work.
Q. 
Okay.  And have you got any evidence of your employer’s review of performance,
whether it be factory, paramedic?
A. 
No, not at this time, no.  Like I said to Ms Ryan, this is on my ‘to do’ list.
Q. 
Is it not something that’s sort of went higher on your ‘to do’ list as you know,
bearing in mind another hearing today?  How come it got so low on your ‘to do’
list?
A. 
It’s not low on my ‘to do’ list.  It’s like I said, I've had a lot going on so I have a
‘to do’ list, lots of juggling with different aspects.  You know, I have focussed on
the learning side, which has increased my confidence, because obviously that was
a major issue after everything that’s happened, that my confidence had gone
down.  So, by me doing the learning, by me starting to do the work again, that’s
made me into a more rounded paramedic again.
Q. 
And did you actually ask anyone to do references for you?
A. 
Yes, Gary Eaves is more than willing to give me a reference.  I've forgotten his
last name, my supervisor in the factory job Tony, he’s given me all his details,
name, address, email etc.  he’s more than willing to give me a reference.
Q. 
And what about John Flynn?
A. 
Oh yes definitely, definitely.
Q. 
So, I’m not quite sure why you’ve got three people that would give you references
but you haven't come with one today.
A. 
Like I say, I've just been concentrating on the learning aspect and there’s no

reason for it that there’s no – I’m not trying to be obstructive in any way.  There’s
a lot of aspects that need to go into the folder.  It’s a work in progress.  And it’s –
it is something that will be completed.
Q. 
Okay, thank you.  
CHAIR:  Okay, I just want to take you back to the original incident, which precipitated
all this.  How would – looking back now, how would you regard your behaviour
at that time?
A. 
My behaviour wasn’t up to standard.  There were aspects that I should have done,
which I didn’t.  I should have dealt with the incident differently.  I should have
raised my concerns early on, when the patient was put into the waiting room.  It’s
something that I've learnt from, something from a similar situation I've been in
post event and I dealt with it completely differently and for the better.
Q. 
Okay and appreciating that you have now learnt from that, what do you see as
being the root cause underlying what was in a sense and abhorrent set of
behaviours.  Because you’d been in practice for a long time before that as a
paramedic perfectly satisfactorily.  And then suddenly there’s this one incident, so
what was the root cause to make you change from, in a sense, being a perfectly
satisfactory paramedic, to being one, which was a problem on that particular
instance.  What was the root cause behind that?
A. 
It was simply that the problems that were going on in my own life, I don’t want to
go into details for obvious reasons.
Q. 
 No indeed, I’m not – 
A. 
On that day it came to a head.  My mind set was wrong.  My decision-making was
wrong and I made those mistakes.
Q. 
Okay.  While not wishing for you to have the same problems again for – but if
other problems arose of a similar sort of magnitude, what makes you think you
wouldn't behave in the same way?
A. 
Because I’m a lot stronger person now.  I've been to Magistrates court, I've  been
to Crown court, I've been to High Court, I've been questioned on a police station. 
I've been shouted at in a police station.  I’m a lot stronger person now than I ever

was before.  I am, like I said to Ms Seager, just I’m a lot more aware of my
behaviour, I’m a lot more aware of how to adjust it.  I've become a more rounded
person.  And I’m very confident that my mind set will never go in that direction
ever again.  
Q. 
Okay thank you very much.  I will just ask my colleagues if they have any
supplementaries for you.
MS SEAGER:  No thank you.
CHAIR:  Okay.  Is there anything arising on the Panel’s questions?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  No thank you.
CHAIR:  Anything arising from the Panel’s question?
Re-examination by MR HOYLE
MR HOYLE:  Yes, just a few things if I may.  In relation to the root cause, you’ve
identified it as being home life problems.  Would you like the opportunity to go
into private session and discuss those further or would you not, it’s entirely up to
you.  Obviously, if it’s in private session then it will not go on any written
transcript that can be seen by any member of the public or indeed the press.  It
would simply be a – for the purpose of professional considering.
A. 
I’m willing to discuss it with the Panel if they would like to understand.
Q. 
Okay so in which case, can I make an application to go into private session for the
purposes of speaking about the root cause Mr Geary has identified?
CHAIR:  Are you happy to do that, any legal advice?  Okay we are now in private session
so can we record that please and could I ask the public to leave.
(The hearing went into private session at 12.12 p.m. 
and resumed in public session at 12.31 p.m.)
CHAIR:  Okay, we are back in public session again and we are just dealing with
questions arising from the Panel.

MR HOYLE:   
Yes sir, I've been advising you on how to present the case haven't I.
A. 
Yeah, you have yes.
Q. 
And I haven't suggested to you that bringing references with you were a critical
part of the presentation of your case today.
A. No.
Q. 
No okay, in fact we haven't discussed that at all have we.
A. No.
Q. 
No.  Now, in terms of you have complied with the conditions of practice that were
put upon  you even though they were subsequently quashed as best you could.
A. Yes.
Q. 
So, even though you are currently, and have been since the autumn a paramedic
without restriction, you have carried on those conditions of practice as best you
can.
A. Yes.
Q. 
So, with all of this out of the way, and now we managed to secure you some more
regular work, if any conditions of practice are put upon you.  Or if the original
order is remade, to last for as long as it was intended, will you be able to comply
with all of those conditions whilst you are working?
A. Yes, 
probably.
Q. 
Would you be prepared to accept any new ones?
A. 
I've been prepared to go on with what’s expected.
Q. 
Okay.  Just in terms of dealing with stressful situations, and how you react,
obviously you don’t get many of those in the factory do you.
A. No.
Q. 
But  the  last  time  we  were  here  we  were  subjected  to  what  I  might  describe  as  a
public order incident when we were accosted by a reporter who was behaving
most unprofessionally.  Now, we discussed how you dealt with that on the way to
the tube and you came out with one or two things that showed you reflected
straight away.
A. Yes.

Q. 
Just explain, when we were dealing with that gentleman and I use that term
loosely, all the things that were going through your mind, if you would.
A. 
Well, my prior concern was to obviously get away from that gentleman.  Because
of the situation he was causing.  Again, in hindsight I could have done things
slightly different.  I ran across the road to try and get away from him, which is an
automatic reaction.  You know, that could have caused problems for me and other
road users.  But when you're in a situation you’ve never been in before, it’s – you
do the best that you think you can at the time.  If it happens again today then it
will be dealt with completely differently.
Q. 
Did that man come within striking difference?
A. 
He did, yes.
Q. 
Did you strike him?
A. No.
Q. 
Did you make threats towards him?
A. No.
Q. 
No.  Going back to when you were going through the difficulties we discussed in
private session, and faced with that situation, could you speculate that you might
have behaved differently, and if so, how so?
A. 
It’s a very difficult question to answer because you – well I probably would have
thought it – I would have acted irrationally at that time.  But I’m a different person
today than I was back then.
Q. 
Okay.  Sir, I have no further questions emanating or arising from the Panel’s
questions.
CHAIR:  Okay.  I will check with my colleagues, no, okay.  In which case then I think we
have finished with your evidence as such and I can move you back to your chair
and I can release you from your evidence.
REGISTRANT:  Thank you.
MR HOYLE:  Thank you sir, I’m obliged. Okay?
REGISTRANT:  Yes.
CHAIR:  Okay, I think are we now at the point where the HCPC would summarise and

then make an further submissions, and then you would have a final word to make
any submissions or comments that you wish?
MR HOYLE:  I have a significant amount of submissions to make.  It’s just a matter of
where we are going to fit that in.  I have an opening statement. I need to walk
through the documents and I need to make closing submission sir.  But at the
moment I think it’s still our floor, if I’m not mistaken.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well perhaps the best thing to do is to hear Mr Hoyle’s
submissions, let Ms Ryan say anything she wants to say and let Mr Hoyle have the
last word.  
CHAIR:  Okay, so if we hear those submissions now and the HCPC are happy with that?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes sir.
CHAIR:  But I am anxious to give you the last word in the proceedings.
MR HOYLE:  Now I estimate that this is going to take well under an hour if you were
thinking about timetabling specially a lunchbreak.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Yes, is that a written document?
MR HOYLE:  No, this is my notes.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  That’s not to hand out?
MR HOYLE:  That’s not to hand out, no sir.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Okay. Because if you will be reading something it could…
MR HOYLE:  No, these are simply my notes.
CHAIR:  Okay, so I think we are going to adjourn now for lunch and it’s now, by my
watch,  twenty  five  to  one.    We  need  to  make  sure  that  we've  got  the  bundle
annotated with Post-It’s at the appropriate point.  So, half past one?  Would that
be a reasonable time to go and have that and also to have lunch?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes sir.
MR HOYLE:  I think so, yes sir.
CHAIR:  Okay, in that case then we will adjourn until half past one.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Thank you.
CHAIR:  Thank you.

(The hearing adjourned from 12.38 p.m. until 1.39 p.m.)
CHAIR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we’re
back in the session again – Mr Hoyle.
MR HOYLE:  Thank you, sir.  Obviously, the mood is nowhere near as tense and
fatuous as it has been in the past because we can now see the light at the end
of the tunnel.  And hopefully, this will be an end to everything, for everyone.  I
have an opening statement and then I’m going to walk you through some of
the documents.  I’m going to walk you through some of the case law and I’m
going to invite you to draw some conclusions.
 
  But obviously, I’ve done a great deal of research into the background of how
we’ve arrived here.  And one or two things, when I speak of them, you may be
tempted to say are not relevant.  But one of the things that we’re here for is it
was suggested that public interest had not been met.  The public, therefore,
may be interested in this and certainly we have a law reporter here with us,
today, who may report on a rather unique set of circumstances that causes us
to be here, or in another view, not quite so unique as they might be.
 
  We’re here because of the Professional Standards Authority, and no other
reason than that.  You would have thought the Professional Standards
Authority was an organisation aimed at ensuring patient care and safety – an
extra safeguard in a chain of safeguards.  And we all know on reading the
news that sometimes these safeguards do not work.  There are enquiries and
there are things to be learned from those enquiries.  Now, I was once of the
opinion that the PSA did that – they ensured professional standards.  But what
I quickly discovered is that nothing could be further from the truth – that is not
what they do, and I will explain why.  Their remit is to review every decision
of the health regulatory bodies: so that’s the NMC, the GMC, the GDC.  I’m
not sure if they stretch as far as the Veterinary College, but certainly, the
regulatory law is the same.
 
  Now, you may remember from my summing up, more than a year ago, the

rogues gallery, as I called it, of criminal offenders, all of whom retain their
registration because they did some serious, and in some cases, pre-meditated
acts of criminality, and they retained their registration.  And indeed, none of
those, according to my research – and I do stand to be corrected – were ever
challenged by the Professional Standards Authority.  They let those cases and
the decisions of the Panel be and let them lie; didn’t seek to interfere.
 
  The Professional Standards Authority do not earn money, a bit like the HCPC,
really.  They take a proportion of fees given to regulatory bodies, so a
proportion of the fees that are given by registrants to you, you then give to the
PSA, along with all of the other regulatory bodies.  So ultimately, this
organisation is funded by every healthcare professional who has a current
registration.  One of the things that you have to have in mind is the interest of
the registrants, as well as the public.  You have to balance that against the
interests of the Registrant; sometimes that can be a very fine balance, open to
challenge.  
 
  Now, I draw your attention sir, to C1.  Now, I made a freedom of information
request on 5 April 2016, and they responded within a month.  So they actually
didn’t take all the time they were entitled to.  And I asked them to supply
details of all complaints made by members of the public, where they
complained about the leniency of the decision.  And I just picked out of them,
the GMC, the NMC and the HCPC.
CHAIR:  I mean, I appreciate this is part of your submission, but I mean, it needs to
focus very much on what sanction, if any.
MR HOYLE:  Indeed, sir.  And as I said in my opening gambit, there may be a
temptation to think that what I’m about to say to you may not be relevant, but
please bear with me.  This opening statement will take me another five
minutes, then I’ll be moving on to the things that you want to hear. 
 
  Now, the PSA responded, and said, ‘We don’t accept or record complaints
about leniency, not in our remit; we don’t do it.’  So, what is it that they do do
– that’s the question.  Sir, you have my question, you have my answer at C1. 

So, what we can take from this is that we are not here because somebody on
the public, or many people from the public, or many registrants, or the
healthcare professionals, phoned up the Professional Standards Authority or
melted down the switchboard here, and said, ‘You’ve come to the wrong
decision on Mr Geary.’  There’s no evidence been put forward to say that
that’s the case, so it must be presumed that no complaints were made and
indeed, there’s no way of recording it.
 
  Now, we’re here because of the curious practice that the PSA now seems to
take a theme.  There is a theme to what they’ve done, and I’ll draw your
attention to that in the case law.  Now, what the PSA do, they have a budget of
£3 million.  The chief executive takes £205,000 of that, for himself.  But what
they actually do is they farm out all of their work to Fieldfisher Solicitors. 
Fieldfisher are the instructing solicitors for Fenella Morris, QC, who acted for
the PSA, at the High Court.  What they do when they review each of these
decisions, it appears to me, is they treat it like a law school debating society,
and they construct arguments and case law.  They don’t seem to stretch into
misapplication of facts that amount to clearly perverse decisions, as perhaps
might happen in an employment tribunal, where I also represent.  They seem
to concentrate only on case law.  They also have a history involving the
Nursing and Midwifery Council, and the patient safety champion, James
Titcombe, OBE.  Now, I won’t elaborate on that any further, but it is on the
record, should any member of the public who reads this transcript feel the
need to go and explore further about what it is that the PSA do.
 
  So, why are we here?  Now, I’d suggest to you that somebody, just like
everybody else on the PSA, saw the news, and they saw that video.  You
remember day one?  You had a video; you had a certificate of conviction, and
you were going to treat it as a conviction case, and you had an awful lot of
arguments.  The case became something completely different.  You recognised
it was always not what it seemed because there were more videos; there was
more evidence that had been secreted from you by the HCPC.  I would make

no bones about that.  Now, nobody else but you saw those videos.  So nobody
but you could draw the same conclusion that you did.  So anyway, they didn’t
see the videos; they set their legal academics onto it and they drafted an
appeal.  
 
  Now, the PSA also seemed to have some – a lot of great deal of leverage over
the HCPC.  They conduct performance reviews of you and the other health
regulators.  This is where things take a slightly more sombre turn, and I’ll take
you to C2 and C3, and in particular, 6.22 at the top of C3.  And I’d just like to
have you reflect on why you applied to do – perform the role that you done,
and the experience that you have got, and any training and instruction you
received in being Panel members of the HCPC.  It was a challenge by the
PSA; they marked the HCPC down on a review; they didn’t give you full
marks.  And this said, the HCPC has pointed out to us that Panels are
independent, and that it cannot control their decisions; rightly so, that’s the
whole purpose of having independent Panel members.  They then go on to say:
‘We agree that this is the case.  However, the HCPC remains responsible for
the appointment and training of its Panels and, indeed, its Case Presenters. 
We believe that it,’ ‘it’ being the HCPC, ‘should have significant concerns if
Panels are consistently not following its guidance’ – ‘Panel,’ meaning you,
‘guidance’ meaning the Indicative Sanctions Policy, in this case.  ‘We hope
that the HCPC takes on board our concerns and provides further training for
panellists who sit on an interim order hearings.’  This is in relation to interim
order hearings but the import seems to cover the whole spectrum of the work
that you do, and its Case Presenters.  ‘We understand the HCPC has taken
steps to do so.’
 
  Now, I read that and I reread it, and I looked at it and that came to me as being
positively Orwellian.  It’s got an air of the Stalinist gulag.  People were sent to
the gulags for re-education when they dissented.  The PSA are saying the
HCPC need to re-educate you, because they are not happy about a decision
that you made, even though you are independent and the HCPC have no

control – so they say, because you are independent.  They’re challenging the
sovereignty of the HCPC, and they’re challenging your independence to
decide as you see fit.  I will take you to the case law.  They seem to be flying
in the face of that, and it’s unconstitutional.  So, potentially, Panel members -
not necessarily you, but other Panel members – are under pressure and your
performance is being measured, it is being measured by the PSA.  You’re
going to be encouraged, despite your independence and in direct conflict with
it – whether or not you knew it before today, I don’t know – you’re going to be
measured on whether you toe the line, and that is in relation to the decisions
and the findings of fact that you make.  A very definite import of the meaning
‘provides further training’ could be drawn.  And I’m challenging it today on
the public record before it damages justice, because I know that this is a
unique case, and the legal scholars and the people who make decisions about
organisations like this are going to be reading this transcript.  
 
  What the PSA is saying is you need to be controlled if you do not follow its
guidance.  So therefore, the organisation bringing the case is also telling its
independent panellists how to decide the case with a clear risk that something
might befall you; you might be let go if you don’t meet key performance
indicators.  Other suitable candidates who apply to become panellists may not
be appointed because they have a history of fair play, a sense of duty; maybe
they’ve dissented to something like this, in the past.  Maybe they’ve
challenged an authority that’s oppressive and arbitrary.  So, in actual fact,
what 6.22 on C3 seems to be saying is it’s not guidance; it’s absolute rule
dressed up as guidance to give the illusion of fair play.  Perhaps one day a
whistle-blower might shed some light on that; we don’t know.  But we’re here
for very sound reasons today because you chose to be part from the normal
application of the Indicative Sanctions Policy, and the PSA took exception to
that.
 
  So that’s my opening statement.  I’m now going to take you through the
bundle.  I’m just going to explore the arguments that I’d like to put to you. 

And then I’m going to invite you to prefer my view.
 
  Now, at page 1 of the bundle – bundle A – this has been produced for the
purposes of this hearing by the HCPC. Now, first thing to remember, and it
was something that was raised at the very beginning of this hearing: the time
of the hearing, and indeed, the appeal, Mr Geary was partway through his
suspended sentence.  That was in essence the biggest beef that the PSA had
with your decision.  But on February 11, this year, Mr Geary’s suspended
sentence fell away.  He is now no longer under a suspended sentence.  He has
not reoffended and if he does reoffend, that suspended sentence cannot be
reinvigorated and added consecutively or otherwise concurrently to any further
sentence.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Can I just have that date, please?
MR HOYLE:  February 11, of this year, sir.  So, you’ve already identified that you
have to look at Mr Geary in the current situation and not as it was, so any
argument, any reference to the fact that, at the time, Mr Geary was given a
conditions of practice whilst he was still on a period of suspended sentence, all
of that falls away.  Nevertheless, you were entitled to give him a conditions of
practice while he was on suspended sentence.  Equally, you were entitled to
suspend him until the expiry of that sentence; you did not, and indeed, I
suggest to you now sir, you cannot consider suspension as being a safe
sanction and disposal of his case, because Mr Geary is now being treated as a
misconduct case, and he has no criminal sentence over him.
 
  Now, over the page on page 2, paragraph 7: ‘The Professional Standards
Authority appealed against a decision of the Conduct and Competence
Committee on the basis that the sanction imposed by the Panel was not
sufficient protection of the public’ – that is absolute nonsense.  Whoever’s
drafted this has drafted it without any care, whatsoever.  There were eight
grounds of appeal that the PSA drafted.  In actual fact, what they did was they
went fishing with a hand grenade.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Mr Hoyle, if it’s any assistance, the decision of Mr Justice

Silber was that his decision should be placed before the Panel; they do have it,
and they have read it, and they will read it.
MR HOYLE:  Yes, but the opening gambit from the HCPC says that this case, and the
case was sent back, because the sanction imposed was not sufficient for the
protection of the public; that was an allegation that was made; that was a
ground of appeal that was raised, but it was one that seems to have been
withdrawn entirely, because we will hear about the two grounds on which
submissions were heard.  This is inaccurate and it’s misquoting entirely Judge
Sir Stephen Silber’s reasons.
 
  So, moving on: the arguments put forward were put to me in skeleton form,
and obviously to the court in skeleton form.  They don’t form a part of this
bundle.  But this simply serves as a reminder to you of the salient points that
were considered.  As to sanction, the Committee - that being you – they go on
to say, the case of CRHP v GDC and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 Admin –
that was the predecessor of the PSA.  The Fleischmann  case  is  one  that
everybody always refers to all the time, which includes the following: ‘As a
general principle, where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal
offence or offences, he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he
has satisfactorily completed his sentence.  Only circumstances which plainly
justify a different course should permit otherwise.’  
 
  You satisfied yourself that there were circumstances that plainly justified a
different course, and so therefore Mr Geary was able to keep practising or
resume his practice, whilst there was still a live sentence; that was a latitude
you were able to exercise.  Where we’re eventually going to go with this is the
succeeding argument is you failed to articulate sufficiently your reasons, and
we’ll get back to that.  There may have been a reason for that, in that by the
time you’d delivered your verdict, it was 17.51 hours, I think it was; I’d
already had to leave in order to be able to catch a train.  You delivered the
judgment, not by reading it out in full but by – your opening words were, ‘The
headlines.’  So you read out the decision but you didn’t give all the reasoning

that followed in the judgment that was handed down, having been later
completed.  But you were under pressure that day to complete the hearing so
you made best use of time, and obviously you didn’t have a leisurely amount
of time in order to be able to draft a decision.  I agree with the decision, by the
way.  I don’t find anything wrong with it, so I’m not criticising the decision
that you made, the PSA have.
 
  Now, at 55 and 56 of your decision, ‘The protection of the public will not be
served by the application of a different standard at erasure from that which is
applied when considering registration.  Personal factors such as character,
previous history, practitioner’s livelihood’ – sorry, this is in relation to
Fleischmann; so this is paragraphs 55 and 56 of Fleischmann.  So what
they’re saying is – well, I’ll finish it, actually.  ‘Personal factors such as
character, previous history and the practitioner’s livelihood as a dentist will
invariably be insufficient to produce a different result from that which would
have applied had the individual been an applicant for registration.’
 
  So the test that they are putting on there is that Mr Fleischmann, at the time he
was handed his sanction, was in a position whereby he could not have applied
to go on the register because he had a live sanction.  So, by default, if he had a
live sanction, he would not be allowed to remain on the register until that live
sanction fell away; that was Fleischmann.  Fleischmann was drawn to your
attention by the Legal Assessor.  There is a practice note; I take you back to
page C3: practice note – Indicative Sanctions Practice Note.  The Committee
stated – sorry, this again is – now, is this you or is this Fleischmann – no, this
is you.  ‘The Panel gave consideration to the issue of whether this was a
serious conviction and came to the decision that it was not the most serious.’
And I argued with you that he had been charged with the lowest possible
health and safety offence.  He had been peculiarly charged by the police,
having been on bail for two and a half years, because they couldn’t stick
anything else on him.  They tried gross negligence/manslaughter; they tried
misconduct in public office.  They had him hanging around for two and a half

years.  Eventually they decided to do the health and safety executive shot for
him.
 
  So, you decided that it was not the most serious.  Also, you said, ‘First,
because the Registrant had been working without incident for a period of two
years since the event and up to the time of the Crown Court hearing. 
Secondly, the Registrant has now gained sufficient, albeit not complete
insight, such that the Panel has some confidence that the Registrant would
make every effect to ensure that the suspended sentence would not be
activated.’  You were absolutely correct in that judgment, sir, because Mr
Geary did not reoffend.  It was not brought to the attention of any regulatory
authority or enforcing authorities.  And indeed, your confidence in him was
well placed.  Your trust in him was well placed.  It was the correct decision.
 
  So, the next criticism which was levelled at you is the Committee set out what
it considered to be the relevant aggravating, mitigating factors.  And they then
go on to criticise and say the latter were focused upon the Registrant rather
than the public interest theme – it’s the theme I’m going to build for you. 
Now,  they  then  go  on  to  mention  two  cases:  they  are R (Jackson) v General
Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2595, and Professional Standards Authority v
Health and Care Professions Council and Gemma Williamson [2015] EWHC
2420 (Admin).  This is actually being rather critical of these particular cases
because the PSA argued, ‘A Committee that departs in its approach on
indicative sanctions guidance should give reasons for doing so.’  Then they
quote these two cases; I’ll be walking through those very shortly.  The practice
note includes the following:  ‘As noted in Fleischmann, if the Registrant has
been convicted of a serious criminal offence and is still serving their sentence
at the time the matter comes before the Panel, normally the Panel should not
permit the Registrant to resume their practice until that sentence has been
satisfactorily completed.’
 
 And you remember, I spent some time labouring the word, ‘normally,’
meaning that is not a ‘must’ or a ‘should’; it’s not even a ‘could.’  You have a

latitude and a discretion to exercise, and you did on this occasion exercise
your right, as independent Panel members, to exercise that latitude – that
discretion.  
 
  Now, this then brings us to page 13.  Now, Mr Geary, being a man of
absolutely zero cash reserves, asked me to assist him in the appeal.  I was
granted full rights of audience by Judge Stephen Silber, in the High Court,
without opposition from the PSA solicitor, helpfully, or the PSA’s barrister,
quite helpfully.  Now, I was therefore able to advance some arguments.  Now,
at the commencement of the hearing I had raised, in writing, on a number of
occasions, our challenge to the blunderbuss that had been fired in our
direction.  There was then some discussion about what grounds of appeal PSA
were going to run with and what they were; what they eventually settled on to. 
If I can take you to page 14, paragraph 6, because there was some agreement
of concession made by the HCPC’s own barristers, instructed by Kingsley
Napley Solicitors.  I think it was Kingsley Napley, wasn’t it?
PRESENTING OFFICER:  It’s Bircham Dyson Bell.
MR HOYLE:  Bircham Dyson Bell; I do apologise.  Paragraph 6 of Judge Stephen
Silber’s reasons: ‘The HCPC does not challenge two of the grounds of appeal,
although in respect of one of the grounds it makes an admission which is
different from the Appellant’s ground, but which nevertheless means that it
accepts the ruling on sanction imposed on the Registrant should be quashed.’
 
  Now, we did not accept.  The hearing went ahead because we challenged all of
the grounds because we felt that the decision that you handed down, the reason
for it was absolutely correct.  So, the judge only heard submissions on two of
those grounds.  The first ground is that, when determining the correct sanction,
the Committee failed to have any or sufficient regard to the public interest.  I
disagree with that - you might, as well – and in particular, the maintenance of
the reputation of the profession.  In other words, the point is that the
Committee failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the
Registrant, and the public.  We already know that the public have no

mechanism to make any complaints.  And certainly, we do not have any
evidence that, as I said, the switchboard melted down with people clamouring
for Mr Geary’s blood – it didn’t happen; it’s theoretical.  
 
  Now, one of the things which makes your decisions quite safe is that, albeit
that you are professional paid Panel members, but two of you are members of
the public, with a broad experience of life.  The third member is a paramedic,
but he is also a member of the public.  He could see it from two different
directions.  So I would say that the public interest has been served by your
joint decision making, by up to 75% at least – 66.6 between the two of you
plus Mr Simmonds’s contribution, if he was to put himself into the mind of
the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus who is nothing more than a
member of the public.  So, in other words, the point is that Committee failed
to strike a fair balance between the interests of the Registrant and the public. 
The HCPC agrees that the appeal must be allowed on this ground.  The second
ground relates to a failure by the Committee to give adequate reasons to justify
its decision.
 
  Right, let us deal with maintenance of the reputation and having sufficient
regard for the public interest: that relates to the fact that you allowed a man
with a suspended sentence hanging over him to retain his registration.  That is
no longer in contemplation.  It cannot be considered, it’s not a relevant factor,
it’s not a material factor; it is now history.  Mr Geary appears before you as a
person accused of misconduct on an isolated occasion, nearly five years ago,
and he has today given further evidence of his insight - something you will
have to take into consideration.  
 
  Now, page 23, paragraph 38: this is another important point.  My fear was
that, if we did not challenge this appeal, they drafted all sorts of consent orders
and made all sorts of written threats about costs.  They did it persistently; they
were asked to stop.  They didn’t want this to go to court.  But it was my view
that you might feel compelled to revisit your decision and strike Mr Geary off
because your decision was unpopular.  Well, to do that without Mr Geary

having a say would not be in the interest of him because he still wants to
maintain his paramedic career.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Mr Hoyle, it wasn’t the question that the decision was
unpopular; it was unlawful, which is why the High Court remitted it back.
MR HOYLE:  If you will allow me to continue, I will explain further, Mr Serr.  At
paragraph 38, Mr Hoyle, who as I explained is a McKenzie friend acting for
the Registrant, contends the Committee’s decision on the sanction to be
imposed on the Registrant was correct.  He points out that, if the case is
remitted, the Committee at the remitted hearing may well feel constrained to
impose a greater sanction on the Registrant.  Judge Silber was at pains to point
out - there was discussion on this, sir.  I explained that if the case was remitted
the Committee should not regard itself as being obliged to impose a heavier
sentence.  There was reference to Mr Hoyle, two comparable cases, and he
argued that the Registrant’s case should be placed at the bottom end of
seriousness.  I drew his attention to the rogue’s gallery, as I shall refer to it
again, the list of criminal offenders tried by the HCPC and given a sanction
other than strike-off.
 
  Now, Judge Silber then goes on to say, ‘In my view, Ms Morris’ – that’s
Fenella Morris QC, acting for Fieldfisher and the PSA – ‘Ms Morris has
identified a fatal error on the part of the Committee in that it failed to have
regard to the public interest.  ‘The HCPC’ – that is what it should be, not
HSPC – ‘agrees.  And in my opinion, even after taking account of Mr Hoyle’s
submissions, and also the statements to which I’ve referred you from the
judgment of the Court of Appeal in Meadows and Raschid and Fatnami the
appeal must be allowed on this ground.’  Now, I don’t propose to reference
Meadows and Raschid and Fatnami.  I’m not going to look at those
judgments; you can if you are so minded, but I don’t see that there’s anything
in there that particularly assists us, today.
 
  At paragraph 40 it then says, ‘I must stress that the exercise of fixing an
appropriate sanction in disciplinary proceedings is very different from

determining the correct sentence in criminal proceedings.  That is because in
disciplinary proceedings the primary function of the disciplinary panel is first
to address the public safety from the perspective of the risk which the
Registrant concerned may pose to those who use or need his or her service.’
You judged that risk to be low.  You’re entitled to judge that risk to be low. 
‘Second, also to give appropriate weight to the wider public interest that
includes not merely the deterrent effect on other registrants, but also the
reputation of the profession and the public confidence in the regulatory
process.  The Committee failed to have regard to the second matter.’  As I
explained to you only a few moments ago, you have more than enough
experience of members of the public to be able to form the view that any
reasonable member of the public, armed with the facts as you have them,
might conclude.
 
  Now, this is another critical point because this forms a significant part of the
judgment at paragraph 41.  ‘Ms Morris also contends that the appeal should be
allowed because the Committee should not have allowed the Registrant to
resume practice until the sentence imposed upon him in the Crown Court was
satisfactory completed; and that could not occur until 10 February 2017, the
date when the two year period of suspension of his suspended sentence in the
Crown Court expired.’
 
  So, Fenella Morris, QC for the PSA is saying that Mr Geary can be allowed to
continue to practise because the two-year period of suspension has now fallen
away.  So, quite simply, if you’ve come to a decision that doesn’t amount to
suspension or strike-off, it cannot be challenged by the PSA, again; nor would
it be within their interests to do so, I think.  But nevertheless, you have a very
clear instruction, there.  First, from Judge Silber, ‘You are not obliged to
impose a more serious sanction,’ and secondly, a concession from the PSA
that, once the suspended sentence goes, then the majority of their argument
disappears, because we were having this argument in July of last year, when
Mr Geary’s sentence was still live.

 
  Now, we’re going to get to the meat of what remains, and I’ll take you to page
25, paragraph 49.  I will remind you, again, that you delivered your decision in
brief form, very late in the day, after a very intense and tiring hearing which
was brought to a conclusion that day; we simply couldn’t come back for
another.  I’m not suggesting that you made your decision in haste.  What I’m
suggesting is that perhaps with more time available you might have elaborated
more on the deficiencies which the PSA argue were present in your judgment,
and that is being the public confidence.  So, paragraph 49, very surprisingly
again, there’s no mention of the public confidence in the regulatory process, or
more importantly, of the reputation of the profession.  There were some words
missing out of your judgment.  It’s not that you didn’t have those in
contemplation; you just simply – they weren’t written down.  Not necessarily a
fatal flaw in my view, but in the judge’s view this was a fatal error in the
reasons of the Committee, so we have to go by what Judge Silber says.  And it
shows why the appeal against the decision on appropriate sanction must be
allowed.  In those circumstances, I will deal with the next ground of appeal
much more briefly than I would have done if this was a crucial issue, which
will determine the outcome of the appeal.
 
  Ms Morris’s second ground is that the Committee failed to comply with its
obligation that when it departed in its approach from the indicative sanctions
guidance, to give reasons, and reference to again, Jackson and Williamson.  He
draws your attention to that.  Significantly, this is at paragraph 51, the
Indicative Sanctions Policy includes the following statement: ‘This policy is
intended to assist Panels to make fair, consistent and transparent decisions. 
When a Panel deviates from this policy’ – your deviation was to allow Mr
Geary to continue to practise, despite his suspended sentence still being live –
‘its written determination should provide clear and cogent reasons for doing
so.’
 
  Please have in mind, I’m going to take you to Jackson and Williamson.  But
Jackson and Williamson are the two cases which you must have the most

regard to.  ‘The HCPC accepts that the appeal should be allowed on a different
ground, based on the absence of reasons.  This ground is that the Committee
failed to provide sufficient reasoning why, in the light of its failure to fully
engage with the issue of public confidence in the regulatory process and
maintenance of the reputation of the profession, the sanction imposed on the
second respondent was justified.’  This is a valid basis for allowing the appeal
but it’s different from the way in which Ms Morris puts it.  So we agree to a
point, but there are some differences.  It’s academic arguments, nothing more. 
‘I do not think anything would be gained by considering if I should accept Ms
Morris’s second ground or the HCPC’s version, because for the reasons which
I’ve set out, the appeal has been allowed.’
 
  Conclusion, ‘I should repeat that by allowing this appeal’ – so Judge Silber
did take on board my submissions – ‘I am not indicating that a more severe
sentence should be imposed on the Registrant.  What the Committee must do:
when the matter is remitted and they make their decision on a sanction, the
primary function is to address public safety from the perspective of risk which
the Registrant concerned may pose to those who need his service and also give
appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes not merely the
deterrent effect on the registrants, but also the reputation of the profession and
the public confidence in the regulatory process.’  I imagine this is something
like a university lecturer returning a piece of work to a student because they
haven’t done enough referencing and arguing.  It’s an academic exercise;
you’ve got a 2:1 instead of a first.
 
  Now, so long as you make your decision without fear, favour or finance, and
clearly set out your reasons in your decision – this new decision, it cannot be
challenged by the PSA; that’s the simple fact of the matter.  So, your
determination will be as Mr Geary, as you see him now, not how you saw him
then, but you’ve already accepted that.
 
  Another point that I would raise at page 27, paragraph 63 and 64: what is the
position at present?  There is no interim order – no, there isn’t and there never

has been.  In the near five years since the incident occurred of misconduct Mr
Geary has never been seen as posing so much  of  a  risk  to  the  public  that  an
interim order needs to be put in place.  Even at the last – well, at the
substantive hearing I did question this.  Ms Ryan sought advice from the
HCPC, and their determination was, ‘We will not be making an application
for an interim suspension order.’  So Mr Geary never presented a risk then,
clearly, he doesn’t now and you should bear that in mind.  Any departure from
that, to suggest that he might, and suspension would be necessary, flies in the
face of the logic that we already know.
 
  Now, I will revisit the issue regarding the Legal Assessor.  I need to because
when I gave my submissions to you in January, I said you had not been
properly informed by her and that the advice that she gave was wrong.  That
obviously met with some comment and I stand by it.  And I’m now going to
explain to you how and why.  Why is it that you did not give sufficient reasons
to satisfy the PSA paper sifters?  Why is it that they decided to take it all the
way to the High Court?  What is the route case analysis?  Let’s use that.  What
is the root cause of us being back here today?  
 
  So, the advice you were given, page 242, starts at Legal Assessor, third of the
way down, second paragraph.  And sir, this is the advice being given to you by
the Legal Assessor.  ‘And sir, in this instance we’ve already established, this
being a conviction case, you have the full range of sanctions available to you. 
And when considering which sanction to impose, the Panel may take into
account the terms of the HCPC’s Indicative Sanctions Policy.  Those
guidelines are persuasive in nature, and it’s ultimately a matter for the Panel’s
judgment.’  You were not briefed on Jackson or Williamson; it would have
been entirely appropriate to do so when it became apparent that you would
deviate from the normal interpretation of the Indicative Sanctions Policy, and
I’ll make the point that Williamson was a PSA case that occurred only six
months ago.  Anybody properly informed, performing the role of the Legal
Assessor, recognising where this case is going to go, should have informed

you about Jackson and Williamson, and she did not.
 
  Now, page 243, a quarter of the way down, this is the continuation of the
advice that’s given.  ‘Sir, there has been reference to the Fleischmann case. 
And it was Mr Justice Newton in the High Court who stated that, “As a matter
of general principle, where a Registrant has been convicted of a serious
criminal offence, he should not be permitted to resume practice until he
satisfactorily completes his sentence.  Only circumstances which plainly
justify a different course should permit otherwise.”’  And that is a direct quote,
and I made distinction with a reference to ‘normally’ – this is the moot point:
normally, and I made submissions on that – is the wording that has been
adopted by the HCPC practice note guidance.  But as you will have seen, Mr
Justice Newton does within his quote envisage that there may be
circumstances which plainly justify a different course.  Now, if a situation
arises where circumstances plainly justifying a different course arise, then a
competently informed Panel would have had regard to Jackson and
Williamson, and would have carefully drafted their reasons in order to prevent
their decision being appealed; that is what happens.  You were not told about
the HCPC being appealed against by the PSA, successfully, in Williamson
You were not told about the Jackson case.  If you had have been, we would
not be sitting here today.  
 
  So, obviously, Mr Geary has suffered a significant amount of costs from the
PSA, and we may seek to recover those from the HCPC because of
negligence, the aggregating feature being of course, as I’d raised, that I
believe, and I have yet to have a determination from the professional
authorities because I have not reported it yet, that the Legal Assessor was not
qualified to give that advice; and secondly, that it negligently had not kept up
continual professional development – perhaps, I don’t know.  Those are things
to be explored.  But you should have been told about Jackson and you should
have been told about Williamson because it was obvious at that time, you were
going to depart from the Indicative Sanctions Policy because the

circumstances plainly justified a different course to those which are normally
adopted.
 
  Now, did you disregard the public?  You didn’t, as far as I’m concerned.  If I
could take you to page 259.  This is part of your full reasons which were
handed down after the conclusion of the hearing.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Why does this matter?  The High Court felt that the decision
was unlawful and it was remitted back.  So really, don’t you need to be
focussing, now, on the personal circumstances of Mr Geary?
MR HOYLE:  No.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well, I’m telling you that you do.
MR HOYLE:  Well, I will get there, but I will get there in a way that I propose to do
because I will be going back to case law.
LEGAL  ASSESSOR:    Alright.    Well,  how  is  that  going  to  be  of  assistance  to  this
Panel?
MR HOYLE:  Because we’re here because case law wasn’t considered.
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  No, that’s not the reason-
MR HOYLE:  No, I’m sorry.  It’s taken a year or more to get here and I’m not going to
be interrupted.  I am going to continue and once I’ve done my summing up, if
you want to give legal advice on anything that I’ve said, that is your right.  But
you are an independent Legal Assessor, so please –
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Well, I’m trying to direct these proceedings to assist the Panel,
okay.  We are not revisiting the decision of Mr Justice Silber; that’s gone.  We
are now in a position where the Panel are looking to decide what is the
appropriate sanction.
MR HOYLE:  I need to ensure that the Panel do not make the same mistake twice.  As
far as I’m concerned they have been incompletely directed, once, and I intend
to make sure that they are not incompetently directed, again.  So, if you’ll let
me continue, please –
LEGAL ASSESSOR:  Mr Hoyle, I –
MR HOYLE:  Sir, if you would ask Mr Serr not to interrupt me because I still haven’t

finished.
THE CHAIR:  I won’t ask that, no, because the Legal Assessor is there to help the
Panel and to make sure the proceedings proceed as efficiently as possible. 
However, it might perhaps assist you to appreciate that the Panel is aware of
the point that you’re making: that if the Panel reaches a decision which is
contrary to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance, it must give its reasons, very
carefully.  The Panel has appreciated that point that you’re making; does that
help?
MR HOYLE:  Well sir, I need to make sure in my own mind that nothing has been
missed.  Now, I am going to be a matter of another five minutes; that is all I’m
going to be.  If you would please afford me that five minutes without
interruption, I’ll be most grateful, and perhaps you will be as informed as I
am.  I’d be grateful of that.
THE CHAIR:  Okay.
MR HOYLE:  Thank you, sir.  Page 259 of your judgment, paragraph 36, you
addressed: ‘In relation to the public interest element of its decision, the Panel
considers that the matters are sufficiently serious to make a finding of
impairment, notwithstanding whether or not there had been personal
remediation.’  You addressed the public interest there.
 
  The decision on sanction, paragraph 39, that is some of your reasoning, which
I would be grateful…  I won’t read it out, it’s a very long passage but it’s
something I’m sure you’ve familiarised yourself with.  But at paragraph 40:
‘In reaching its decision, the Panel has taken into account the Council’s
Indicative Sanctions Policy, the advice given by the Legal Assessor’ – which I
say is defective, or was defective, and is the reason why we’re sat here, today
– ‘and the parties’ representations.’  And I’m making representations today to
ensure that all the Ts are crossed and all the Is are dotted.
 
  Now, at page 262, you address the public interest, again – paragraph 45.  ‘A
caution order would not provide any degree of public protection.’  You
considered the public protection there, okay.  At paragraph 48, page 263,

fourth line down, ‘A period of suspension or strike-off would not in the
Panel’s view, be required in the public interest.’  And then you’ve balanced
the public interest against further punishment and it being excessive.  So, that
deals with all the documents in bundle A; I’ve no need to revisit those.  What I
do need to do to complete my hopefully thorough presentation, and make it
properly understood, is that I’ve given some case citations to Mr Serr. 
Preparations are going to be made for you to have copies made available.
R on the application Jackson v GMC Friday 26 July 2013, so this is a date
which preceded your decision by several years – three years, two and a half,
something like that.  At page 46 of that judgment it is entitled, ‘Insufficient
Reasons,’ I am only dealing with the legality of the decision.  The situation is
therefore different from the situation which existed in the case of Southall v
GMC’ – you may want to go and have a look at that, as well.  It’s Doctor
David Southall.  The circumstances are so different that I have chosen not to
visit it in detail, but it’s referred to in this case.  And you are entitled and
invited to go and look at it if you so wish, because there is a particular word
which is used right at the end of that judgment, ‘amplification’; I’ll return to
that in a minute.  ‘Both parties accepted that this is a case where the Panel is
under a duty to give reasons, and both parties relied on Southall as setting out
proper guidance about the extent of that duty to give reasons.  I accept those
joint submissions.  If one looks at paragraphs 49-57 of Southall’ – you may
wish to make a note of that – ‘there is extensive discussion about the duty to
give reasons.  The reasons will state the decision in a form which makes it
sufficiently clear to the losing party why he has lost.  There may be more
complex cases where greater reasons are required.  In Southall itself, it was
held the reasons do not do sufficient justice to that case.’  So, in Southall, the
requirement from the judge was the reasons needed to be amplified, padded
out, more expressive.
 
 Over the page at paragraph 56 of Jackson, ‘For those reasons, shortly
explained, it seems to me that there was a failure to give sufficient reasons to

Mr Jackson about why the Panel failed to take into account or follow the last
sentence at paragraph 16 of the guidance.’  So again, it was probably within
the forefront of the mind of that particular Panel; they simply didn’t articulate
it sufficiently because they felt that there was more pressing or more important
things they needed to turn their hand to putting into writing.
 
 Now, this next case, 10 July 2015; so this was five months before the
commencement of proceedings, six months before the conclusion of the
fitness to practise hearing where you handed down a two year conditions of
practice.  The Professional Standards Authority, the Health and Care
Professions Council is the first respondent, and the second respondent is
Gemma Williamson.  Any competent Legal Assessor, faced with the
circumstances that were thrown up in the final hearing and your obvious
decision, you should have been informed immediately of the importance of
Williamson and reasons why the appeal was successful.  Why it wasn’t, I don’t
know, but given the fact that you were being professionally advised, I would
say it was certainly negligent.
 
  The appeal:  ‘The appellant submits that the Committee’s decision on sanction
was wrong.  It was unduly lenient and not one that the Committee properly
directing itself on the evidence, could have reached.  A caution was outside of
the range of reasonable responses to those findings, having regard to the
purpose of these proceedings, the importance of the protection of the public
interest and the guidance given in the Indicative Sanctions Policy.’  Well,
nobody has once argued that the sanction was unduly lenient.  Well, they tried
to but they withdrew them.  The argument is that you deviated from the
Indicative Sanctions Policy and you failed to give sufficient reasons as to why.
 
  However, at paragraph 23 of Williamson, Ms Richard[?], acting for the HCPC,
says in rebuttal, ‘The Committee was aware of the public interest and the
nature of its task to balance the interest of the public in maintaining the
reputation and the integrity of social work or the social work profession and

the interest of the Registrant because it referred to that elsewhere in its
findings.  So, the HCPC is saying, ‘Well, actually, yeah, we did, the Panel did
refer to’, and indeed, rather than treating it like an academic exercise, which is
what the PSA have done, this court should read this decision as a whole.  And
the references made in one part of the decision indicate the Committee would
be aware of the factors when it comes to a question of sanction; in this case,
the public interest.  You were aware; you were acutely aware of it; that’s part
of your job.  You balance the interests of the Registrant against the public and
the reputation of the profession.  
 
  It is not necessary for the Committee to repeat them in the context of sanction;
so that’s what she said.  She’s standing up for that Panel.  The solicitor in Mr
Geary’s case did you no justice, at all, didn’t advance a single argument in his
defence as far as I’m concerned.  It is not necessary for the Committee to
repeat them in the context of sanction.  Reading the decision as a whole makes
sense as to what factors it took into account, as does the decision that you
handed down, with the extended reasons.
 
 Now in the defence of the HCPC Panel, Ms Richard also says, ‘The
Committee was aware of the Indicative Sanctions Policy, but it was not
obliged to quote it in full, and it was not bound by it.’  You are still not bound
by it.  It is general guidance and it’s not dispositive of sanctions in particular
cases.  
 
  So, the conclusions of the judge in Williamson in July 2015, paragraph 26: ‘I
am nevertheless driven to accept the appellant’s submissions that on the facts
found by the Committee and on the information before it, the sanction of a
caution in this case was unduly lenient and not within the range of reasonable
responses open to it.  It is markedly different from the guidance offered by the
Indicative Sanctions Policy.’  Well, you didn’t follow the Indicative Sanctions
Policy; you exercised your discretion, as you are permitted to do.  But the
criticism in July 2015, ‘It gives no indication of any explanation as to why
such indifference was appropriate.  It does not identify any factor that would

justify a caution being appropriate in this case.’  They failed to give sufficient
written reasons, and as a result the decision was successfully appealed on that
ground.  
 
  Paragraph 28. The judge goes on to say, ‘I recognise that the Committee is not
bound by the terms of paragraph 20 of the Indicative Sanctions Policy.’  I have
no idea if that is the same Indicative Sanctions Policy that’s in there now;
perhaps you might want to go and have a look at that, at paragraph 20, to see
what he meant.  ‘And is not restricted to issue a caution only where there is
only insight, but in my judgment the policy guidance accurately reflects the
general principles repeated in many cases for many years as to the primary
need to uphold the reputation of the profession, as well as the protection of the
public from dishonest and incompetent practitioners.’  However, he goes on to
say at paragraph 30. ‘Of course there are always special circumstances that
will enable the Committee to reach its own conclusions, properly applying the
proportionality principle and the difficult balance it has to make in any
individual appeal.’  You did that.  You’re going to do it again today; I’m
absolute certain of that.
 
  Paragraph 32: ‘There were defects in their reasoning explaining its decision. 
The appeal is accordingly allowed.’  Insufficient reasons, insufficient
discussions, insufficient explanation – that is the reason why Williamson
failed.  It appears that this is the reason why the appeal is successful on that
particular ground, in this case.  I’m also mindful of the fact that you would not
have been entirely responsible for drafting that decision.  You would have
been presented with the skeleton by the Legal Assessor, and you would have
put the meat onto the bones.  And lacking in that skeleton was the legal
framework, which includes Williamson and Jackson.  If it had been included,
you would have paid regard to it and you would have made your own
comment on the reason why the decision you made does not fly in the face of
the appeal of Williamson and Jackson.
 
  Now, I mentioned a theme.  There is a theme, because on 30 June 2016, the

PSA appealed a case against the General Dental Council.  That was The
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v the General
Dental Council, as the first respondent; and the second respondent is AB.  His
name has been redacted because this was in relation to an infectious disease. 
At paragraph 47 of AB, the authority’s grounds of appeal, they are five in
number, and the PSA have done exactly with this case what they did with Mr
Geary’s case; they stuck it on a dartboard and fired at it with a scatter gun.  So
there are five grounds of appeal.  But the fifth one: the Committee failed to
provide adequate reasons for its decisions, in particular, its departure from the
General Dental Council’s Indicative Sanctions Guidance.  So, therefore the
thing it seems to me that the PSA always seem to pursue, and they always
seem to win on, is lack of written reasons, explanation, or in the case of
Southall, ‘amplification’ – the reasons needed to be amplified or argued to
exhaustion, I suppose, to ensure that challenge cannot be mounted.  If you
imagine that you’ve just picked up a contract for a mobile telephone contract,
and you’re expecting to be able to use the phone, to be able to make calls and
receive calls and use the internet.  But the contract is that big, in tiny writing
and it’s full of tiny little clauses.  It’s designed to be absolutely thorough and
inarguable.  The General Dental Council’s response paragraph 50, at the
bottom there: ‘Overall, there was a lack of sufficient reasons for the decisions
which the Committee had reached’ – so there’s a concession there
 
  Now, there’s also a discussion about undue leniency in this particular case; so
this is something that’s been explored in the High Court.  At paragraph 74,
this relates to Lord Justice Judge in Neil v Ryan [1998], and it’s paraphrased
here, ‘But the sentence should not be increased under that act unless the court
is satisfied that it’s not merely lenient but unduly lenient.’  There has been no
claim at all that the sanction given to Mr Geary was unduly lenient.  So you
can cast that from your minds, and you may pay regard to two occasions in his
judgment that Judge Silber states, ‘You are under no obligation to increase the
sanction.’  It does not expect you to do that as a result of the appeal

succeeding.
 
  Now, helpfully, in this particular case of AB – and this is why I’m particularly
going to reserve this case as a point of reference for future cases I’m
representing – paragraph 75: ‘I of course bear in mind that, when considering
the question of sanction, a considerable degree of regard must usually be had
to the fact that the Committee has significant expertise in assessing what is
required in order to best protect the needs of the public and the profession. 
Moreover, when considering the question of undue leniency, it’s necessary to
consider whether the sanction imposed is one that a disciplinary tribunal
having regard to the relevant facts and the object of this disciplinary
proceedings could reasonably have imposed.’  The judge is returning the
power to the Panel, and saying they are entitled to make such judgments on
this sort of thing as they see fit, because they have the significant expertise.
 
  At paragraph 79, ’Furthermore, over and above a general expression of the
need to protect the confidence of the public in the profession, there is no
indication that the Committee considered whether public confidence in the
profession would be insufficiently protected by a conditions of practice rather
than suspension.  Certainly, there is no sufficient rationale provided as to the
reasons for reaching any determination on this issue.’  Had you been presented
with Jackson and Williamson; had you been explained to by the Legal
Assessor why these two cases were successfully appealed, you would have
addressed those in your written judgment at the end of Mr Geary’s substantive
hearing.
 
  At paragraph 81 the judge goes on again: ‘In these circumstances, not only am
I satisfied that the Committee failed to provide adequate reasons for its
decision on sanction, in this case.’  He also goes on to mention that they failed
to have regard to a significant aggravating fact; that was relating to the
gentlemen’s health, if you were to read the entire judgment.  The salient point
here is here we have a third – well, a fourth now, including Mr Geary’s; with
JacksonWilliamsonGeary and AB, all heard in the Court of Appeal and all

succeeded on the same grounds that there is insufficient explanation.
 
  And again, I direct you to Southall, and the word, ‘amplification,’  Am I
saying this loud enough?  Do I need to shout this louder?  Do I need to expand
upon this?  Do I need to put bells and whistles on it?  Do I need to use 100
words, when 10 will do?  Well, it seems that in relation to the public
perception and indeed any deviation from the Indicative Sanctions Policy, it
appears that that is what the court expects of you.  Now, I would point out
that, in criminal appeals, it is within the range of responses of an appeal court
judge to overturn a conviction as being unsafe if it appears that the judge did
not properly direct the jury.  You are a properly constructed jury; you are a
professional jury.  The judge in this case, who was giving you directions, as
Mr Serr certainly was doing earlier on, failed to give adequate directions; that
is why we are sat here today, going over the same stuff, over and over again,
but with the benefit of Mr Geary sitting before you, with no suspended
sentence.  
 
  So there’s no requirement for you to deviate from the Indicative Sanctions
Policy.  You have the full range available to you.  You can exercise your
discretion.  You have today heard from Mr Geary evidence which was
unplanned.  He answered your questions fully.  You now know that he has
greater insight – full insight, I would suggest to you; you may not agree with
me, but he certainly has a greater insight than he did when he appeared before
you more than a year ago.  I would ask you to take that into consideration. 
Really  and  truly,  sir,  I  can  think  of  nothing  else  that  I  need  put  to  you.    The
matter of sanction is one for you.  The aggravating factors that were present in
the previous hearing, we’re now looking at an improved landscape of no
suspended sentence and a greater insight into the root cause.  Further, and to
his credit, Mr Geary’s sanction was quashed five months after you handed it
down, by the High Court.  He was not subjected to any interim order.  It would
probably have been disproportionate, given the fact that the HCPC never
applied one previously.  It would have made them look rather silly.

 
  However, Mr Geary chose to continue, so far as he was able, to abide by the
conditions of the practice that you gave him.  Clearly, he has benefitted from
those; he has a file of CPD.  I believe you described it last time as
‘impressive’; well, it’s even more impressive, now.  There’s far more in it. 
There are a number of regular pieces of reflection in there.  He had no
obligation to comply with those conditions, but he chose to because he felt it
benefitted him.  What I would suggest to you is, sir, if you decided a year ago
that Mr Geary and the public would benefit from a two-year condition of
practice, I would ask that you make no order and that the conditions of
practice remains and expires on the date previously set down.  You may
choose to amend those conditions of practice to take into account Mr Geary’s
now known work circumstances.  You may choose, given the fact that this
incident happened nearly five years ago, and the fact that Mr Geary had
engaged with the process all the way throughout, despite the insurmountable
hurdles he’s based, you might decide that he’s paid his dues and he should not
be issued with any further sanction, and that he walks out of here with no
sanction at all.  You are entitled to make whatever order you wish, and the
case law states that you are fit and proper people to make those decisions, and
you have a full range of sanctions available to you.  
 
  So my submission to you, sir, is please do your best for Mr Geary and please
put your reasons in full, as best you can and make sure that these cannot be
argued by anybody again.  It will serve nobody’s benefit, whatsoever, for all of
us to have to come back here a third time.  Mr Geary would probably have
gone grey by then.  So sir, I thank you very much for giving me your audience,
and bearing with me, despite challenge.  And I have nothing further to say, so
over to Ms Ryan.
THE CHAIR:  Okay, thanks very much.  We have been going for an hour and a quarter
at the moment, and what I would propose at this time is that we have a 15
minute comfort break before hearing submissions from the HCPC, any closing
remarks that Mr Hoyle may want to make after that, giving him a last word,

and then any legal advice that there might be.
PRESENTING OFFICER:  Yes, thank you.
MR HOYLE: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIR:  Okay.  So I think at this point then, we will adjourn for 15 minutes.  It is
now five to three, we’re back here at ten past three and we’ve got the schedule
ahead of us, thank you.
(The hearing was adjourned from 2.55 p.m. until 3.14 p.m.)
CHAIR: Okay ladies and gentlemen, we are back again and, if my memory serves me
correctly, it’s HCPC, final comments from Mr Hoyle, legal advice.  HCPC?
PRESENTING OFFICER: That’s correct.  So, I’m restricted to just making submissions
in relation to the issue of sanction.  As this is a re-determination of sanction you
are, in effect, picking the case up from having made your previous findings in
relation to impairment.  And because of the previous findings that you’ve made,
the range of sanctions are available to you, all of them.  What I would, of course,
remind you is to consider the indicative sanctions policy.  It is a key document
when determining sanction.  I would also ask you to look at the transcript of the
previous submissions in relation to sanction that were made by the HCPC.  Those
are at page 221 of the bundle.  And to make clear, obviously, the HCPC don’t
propose a particular sanction, so they do not suggest what you should or should
not make but simply highlight some factors for you to consider.
 
 So, when thinking about what might be an appropriate sanction in this matter, the
things that I would urge you to consider is that obviously the conviction which
forms the basis of the finding of impairment arises directly from the Registrant’s
role as a paramedic.  There are occasions obviously where registrants pick up a
conviction outside of the role but this is specifically to do with the role as the
health professional, a paramedic.
 
 You will also recall that throughout the original hearing there was very limited
insight demonstrated and that the Registrant sought to highlight the role of others

involved rather than reflect on his own.  I am aware that you’ve been provided
with a reflective piece following on from the point at which the previous decision
was made, but it may be that you still find that the reflections or the comments
that are made in relation to this don’t quite hit the mark in terms of what you
would expect to hear from somebody having received a conviction in relation to
events that were quite so serious.  
 
 The other thing I would ask you to look at once again would be the comments that
were made by the sentencing judge.  Those are at page 201 of the final hearing
bundle and, again, I drew your attention to those on the previous occasion in
respect of some of the matters that the judge picked up in relation to the
Registrant’s unwillingness to become involved.
 
 The position is that in relation to some of the information that you’ve heard today,
and what has happened since your finding, you’ve heard that there has been some
paramedic work undertaken.  It might be that you would conclude that that work
is actually very limited.  It clearly isn’t something that’s of a terribly frequent
nature and you may also conclude that it’s not very similar to the work that he was
conducting at the time that this occurred.  
 
 You’ve also heard that some attempts were made in relation to the previous
conditions of practice order that was imposed and how there are a number of
documents that were proposed to be put forward in relation to that, that have not
yet been put forward.  I don’t seek to highlight that in the sense of a failure to
comply because obviously the decision was made by the High Court but, you have
heard that a particular supervisor has been selected, a Mr Flynn, and the details in
relation to his previous case were highlighted at previous hearings, in particular at
page 232 of the final hearing bundle – of the bundle, so he was referencing the
previous transcript and you might find that in relation to the facts of his matter
and the conditions of practice order that perhaps he’s not a very appropriate
supervisor in the circumstances.
 
 I think the other thing of note is, despite the fact that this matter has been listed for
a re-determination of sanction today, we don’t have any references, any written

references, or anything written from Mr Flynn in relation to how things have been
progressing and I do think that is quite a notable absence because it’s something
that would have potentially provided some assistance in relation to the level of
insight and the level of remediation that has occurred since.
 
 So, what I would say in relation to the incident itself, the actions are damaging to
the profession and they are damaging in relation to the public’s confidence and
that was something particularly that the PSA picked up on.  Obviously when
you’re determining sanction there are a number of different factors that you draw
on.  You do draw in what the Registrant has done, how the Registrant has
reflected, what they may – the likelihood of it possibly being repeated but you also
have to consider the public, not only their protection but how they view what is
happening and there is an – that is the part that the PSA in particular picked up on.
 What are the public going to think about the paramedic profession as a whole or
about the process of regulating a paramedic where such an incident has occurred
and how it is then decided to be marked?  
 
 What I would say is that his actions have portrayed the paramedic service in a
very poor light.  He has demonstrated by virtue of the conviction an uncaring
attitude, a low tolerance for perceived malingerers and an unwillingness to take
people at their face value and – I think in light of that, and particularly thinking
how the public perceive somebody involved in such a serious incident being
allowed to continue to practice, that is something which is very, very key to the
issue of sanction.  
 
 And so I’d ask you to go away and consider all of those factors when you are
considering sanction.  Obviously you will receive legal advice in respect of the
indicative sanctions policy, the purpose of sanction and how to approach it but, in
effect, as I would remind you, you are starting at the point at which you finished
when you made your determination and you are now thinking of all the different
factors from the Registrant’s personal perspective also through to how the public
would view this, as well as their protection.  So, unless I can assist you any
further.

CHAIR: Okay, thanks very much.  Just one point for clarification.  I note your references
to the situation as it was.  We are I believe, if I remember correctly, dealing with
the situation we are in today?
PRESENTING OFFICER: Certainly, and I apologise.  In terms of the finding that you’ve
made, the finding of impairment, the finding that there is impairment as a result of
a conviction, you are picking up at that point but, in terms of considering sanction,
you are considering everything that has happened since.  I apologise that I haven’t
quite made that clear enough but that’s the distinction between the two.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you.  Do you have any questions for the Presenting Officer?  Any
questions or concerns?  Okay, thank you very much.  Mr Hoyle.
MR  HOYLE:  Thank  you.    I  would  be  grateful  if  the  Panel  would  have  regard  to  my
submissions that I made back then and they start at page 223.  My position has not
changed.  I don’t make any alterations to those.  I have simply added further
submissions to bring us up to date to the current position. 
 
 In relation to Mr Geary’s evidence today, I note that Ms Ryan has made no attack. 
There has been no criticism that he has been disingenuous or has been anything
other than genuine or – and he’s been truthful.  There’s no suggestion that you’ve
been misled today.  So, you must take what  Mr  Geary  says  and  give  it  the
appropriate weight.
 
 In terms of the fact that Mr Geary is not doing the same sort of work that he was,
25% of registered paramedics at the HCPC currently do not work for the NHS
doing 999 calls.  You will find them working in minor injuries units.  You will
find them working on private ambulance services, sat at the side of race tracks
waiting for people to fall off motorcycles.  You will find them working as
disability assessors working out people’s eligibility for personal independence
payment.  You will find paramedics in all sort of places other than answering 999
calls.  But paramedic is paramedic, it’s a thought process with a list of available
skills and access to pharmacy if they use their judgement and deem it appropriate. 
There are paramedics who hold their registration who haven’t worked on the road
in years.  Now, I can think of one chief executive from the South Western

Ambulance Service.  He is a paramedic but he doesn’t go out on the road.  He is
too busy being the chief executive.  You don’t have to be currently practising to
be deemed to be competence and I would put this to you: you can be as busy as a
paramedic on the London Ambulance Service or you could be on a remote
Scottish island where not only are you a HCPC registered paramedic but you’re
also the special constable and the postmaster.  Nobody is arguing that simply by
occupying that role and practising infrequently makes you incompetence.  There
has to be evidence that you are incompetent.  What you have to do, in order to be
able to maintain your competence, is to keep up continual professional
development and to access training and refreshing as and when required and Mr
Simmonds will no doubt be able to advise you further on where paramedics can
be found and the frequency with which some of them practise.
 
 
So, in relation to Mr Flynn, there is no objection, there has never been an
objection about Mr Flynn and he has no current sanction.  He is a paramedic with
some 25 years’ experience and he also has experience of having been through
fitness to practise proceedings.  He abandoned a patient and ignored them whist
they deteriorated.  He got an 18 months conditions of practise and he was
commended for the work that he put in to remediate his position when the Panel
sat to review it.  I can think of no better person and indeed, in his work, he doesn’t
work for the NHS, like many paramedics they choose not to answer 999 calls
because it’s demoralising and damaging to their health.  So he doesn’t.  However,
in the role that he occupies, and he’s one of those sorts of people who does sit at
the side of a racetrack waiting for somebody to fall of a motorcycle.  He is a
mentor to other paramedics, to ambulance technicians, to trainee ambulance
technicians, emergency care assistants and anybody else that he encounters and he
is put in charge of.  He holds a position of seniority with a Care Quality
Commission registered private ambulance service.  There could be no attack upon
his credibility or his ability to be able to assist Mr Geary and, indeed, the evidence
that you’ve got in front of you, which Ms Wing has copied, will demonstrate that.
 
 In relation to the public, it’s getting a little bit old hat now to me.  The public have

not, save for a few comments on the internet, and obviously this story’s been
reported, you know ‘he should be hung’ and ‘look at him, he’s got an evil looking
face’, those are the sort of things that have been put up about Mr Geary but by
people who didn’t know their backside from their elbow and they knew nothing
about this case.  Value judgements made by people, generally stupid.
 
 So, the public has stayed silent.  They have not criticised your decision and, even
if they wanted to, there was no mechanism for them to do it.  You are professional
public jurors and this is the position that you are in: you are making a judgement
on behalf of the public.  You did so last time, you did it well, you will do it again
and I’m sure you will do it well.  I remind you now that – July, in July, the
incident will have happened five years ago.  Now, I make the point now.  If this
hearing could not have been listed until after July, I would have been making an
application that you simply were not entitled to make a further determination on
Mr Geary’s misconduct because it was greater than five years on.  You are
precluded from doing that save for exceptional circumstances.  That situation has
not arisen but you must bear in mind that there has to come a time that – there has
to come a limit where you have to stop reminding people about what they did and
concentrate on encouraging them in what they do.  Now, you can do that by the
way that you reflect your decision and your view of Mr Geary as you see him
today.  But, again, what Mr Geary did, and for reasons you heard in private
session, there were mitigating circumstances which he now understands and, in a
12 year career, I think it’s greater than 12 years now isn’t it, he has made one
serious mistake and he’s been paying for it ever since.  At the end of a day, if a
solicitor faced a disciplinary hearing every time he lost a case, the world would
not be a very nice place and there wouldn’t be very many solicitors.  He failed on
that day to do his job to the best of his ability.  
 
 So, in terms of Ms Ryan’s submissions, that addresses everything that she had to
say and – I invite you to make a determination as you see fit sir.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.
MR HOYLE: Thank you sir.

CHAIR: Is there any legal advice at this point?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes, this is the legal advice in respect of the sanction stage of the
hearing.  The decision on sanction is a matter for the Panel exercising the
principle of proportionality and reflecting the principles within the HCPC’s
indicative sanctions policy.  While you are not bound by the indicative sanctions
policy, any serious departure should be taken with care and should be fully
reasoned.  The policy guidance accurately reflects the general principles repeated
in many cases for many years as the primary need to uphold the reputation of the
profession as well as the protection of the public from dishonest and incompetent
practitioners.
 
 Any sanction must be proportionate, that is not intended be punitive although it
may have a punitive effect and it should be no more than is necessary to meet the
legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public and otherwise
meeting the wider public interest in protecting the reputation of the profession,
maintaining confidence in the regulatory system and declaring and upholding
proper professional standards.  The wider public interest includes the deterrent
effect to other registrants, the reputation of the profession concerned and public
confidence in the regulatory process concerned.  Consideration of wider public
interest is particularly important in conviction cases such as the present.  
  
In 
Bolton and The Law Society Lord Bingham stated ‘Because orders made by the
Tribunal are not punitive, it follows that considerations which would normally
weigh in mitigation and punishment have less effect on the exercise of this
jurisdiction than on the ordinary run of sentence imposed in criminal cases.  It
often happens that a solicitor appearing before the Tribunal can adduce a wealth
of glowing tributes from his professional brethren.  He can often show that for
him and his family the consequences of being struck off or suspension would be
little short of tragic.  Often he will say convincingly that he has learned his lesson
and will not offend again.  All these matters are relevant and should be considered
but none of them touches on the essential issue which is the need to maintain,
among other members of the public, a well-founded confidence that any solicitor

they instruct will be a person of unquestionable integrity, probity and
trustworthiness.  The reputation of the profession is more important than the
fortunes of any individual member.  Membership of the profession brings many
benefits but that is part of the price’.  
 
 That case referred to solicitors but as the other case law has demonstrated, it is
equally applicable to health care regulators such as the HCPC.
  
In Low v General Osteopathic Council, Mr Justice Sullivan cited that passage of
Lord Bingham above and said this: ‘Because of these considerations, the
seriousness of the criminal offence as measured by the sentence imposed by the
Crown Court is not necessarily a reliable guide to its gravity in terms of
maintaining public confidence in a particular profession’.
 
 Moving on, the sanctions available are those set out in the indicative sanctions
policy.  These range from no further action through to striking off and, this being
a conviction case, the full range of sanctions are available.  The Panel must
consider the available sanctions in ascending order of severity.  Without prejudice
to the entirety of the range of sanctions available to the Panel, the Panel’s
attention are drawn in particular to the ISP guidance in respect of conditions of
practice.  So far as conditions of practice are concerned, they must be limited to a
maximum of three years and should be remedial or rehabilitative in nature.  The
Panel must be satisfied that the issues are capable of correction, there is no
persistent or general failure which will prevent the Registrant from doing so and
appropriate and realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated.  The Panel
should be aware of the implicit criticism set out by Mr Justice Silber at paragraph
31 of this decision that previous conditions, the Panel’s previous conditions, make
no provision for the assessment of improvement in the Registrant’s insight.
 
 The Registrant’s suspended sentence expired in February 2017.  Accordingly, the
principle that a practitioner has been convicted of a criminal offence generally
would not be permitted to resume practice until he has satisfactorily completed the
whole of his sentence, see CRHP v GDC and Fleischmann, no longer now
applies.

 
 That is the legal advice.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.  Do you have any comments on that legal advice?
MR HOYLE: I do sir.  Firstly, could I ask, Bolton v the Law Society and Low v General
Osteopathic Council, are these appeals or are these disciplinary proceedings that
you refer to, sir?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: They are decisions of the – one is a decision of the Court of Appeal
and the other one is a decision of the High Court.
MR HOYLE: Okay, in which case, sir, I would remind you that because these are from a
higher court, you do have an obligation to have them in mind because they are
binding on similar proceedings.
 
 What I do note, although Mr Serr’s submissions were entirely eloquent, he has, as
in the previous case, failed to brief you and give you his advice on the cases
relating to Jackson, Williamson, AB and Southall and that was the defect in the
advice you received previously which is why we are sat here today.  So, in
addition to the advice of Mr Serr, which I do not rebut, I do not challenge, I ask
you, and again because these are High Court and Court of Appeal cases, you must
have regard to them and you are bound by them and anything you do that could
appear out of the norm, out of the ordinary, please use 100 words where you
would ordinarily use 10 in order to abate anybody’s intention to challenge your
decision on the grounds of insufficiency.
 
 So, thank you sir.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.  Do you want to come back on any of the comments
there?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Well, as I indicated to the Panel, you must exercise the principles
of – you must reflect the principles within the indicative sanctions policy but were
you, if you were minded to depart from that policy, that departure should be taken
with care and any departure should be fully reasoned and that’s the principles that
come out of all of those cases.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you very much.  Do you have any comments on the legal advice?
PRESENTING OFFICER: No, I agree that the cases mentioned are the leading

authorities that the Legal Assessor has mentioned.
CHAIR: Okay.  In that case then, I think we have reached the point where our Panel will
retire and consider its judgement in this matter.  I just need to try to plot our way
forward in terms of – the Panel obviously has to read some of the information that
we  have  in  here.    There  is  also  a  question that you were asking about advice on
any change in the HCPC’s procedure in terms of legal assessors.  Have you
received a response to that?
MR HOYLE: No sir, that was in relation to the indicative sanctions policy and whether or
not the indicative sanctions policy that exists today is the same one that was in
existence when you made your previous decision.  There was something in
relation to paragraph 20.
CHAIR: Yes, I think there was an earlier one when legal assessors can join panels.
MR HOYLE: Yes, that’s right sir, I beg your pardon.
CHAIR: Anyway, have you received it –
HEARING OFFICER: That’s an ongoing – sorry, sir, to interrupt but I may be able to
help.  That is an ongoing enquiry that I’ve made.
CHAIR: Yes, that’s ongoing.
HEARING OFFICER: It’s ongoing, yes.
CHAIR: Well that’s fine.  As long as it’s ongoing.  I won’t forget before the end of the
hearing on Monday.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: The current ISP, or the most recent ISP is September 2015.  I don’t
think there’s a later one.
MR HOYLE: Right.
HEARING OFFICER: I can, again, double check that.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes.
PRESENTING OFFICER: So that will be the same one as at the time of this hearing?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes, it would.
MR HOYLE: Now, sir, we are at a particular situation, Mr Geary is funding my rail fare
and his, he has a wife at home with a newborn and we all know that you are not
going to arrive at a decision today.  Do you foresee on Monday that you would

have cause to have further submissions made or ask Mr Geary to give any further
evidence?  The reason why I ask this is Mr Geary is in a position to be able to
save the best part of £200 by allowing you to make your determination and then
hand the decision down to us in our absence.  That would be a matter for how you
think Monday would transpire.  If you need to have us here, then we must make
the arrangements.  If it could at all be avoided, then we would ask you to give that
due consideration and offer your advice accordingly.
PRESENTING OFFICER: If it helps from the HCPC’s point of view, the only further
submissions that I would anticipate being made, it may be that if there is any legal
advice you seek in the meantime, but potentially depending on what sanction is
imposed, there might be an application for an interim order.  So, for example, if
you imposed a conditions of practice, there may be an application for an interim
conditions of practice, or if you impose a suspension, an interim suspension.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: I imagine there will be an application for anything less than the
conditions –
PRESENTING OFFICER: Yes, yes, yes.
MR HOYLE: Okay, in which case, sir, if the determination is conditions of practice or
below, then we would not mount a challenge to that.  The purpose of that interim
conditions of practice is to allow for an appeal to take place and, of course, we
would not appeal a conditions of practice or anything below that.  So maybe that
would assist, sir.
PRESENTING OFFICER: I mean I would still have to make the application.
MR HOYLE: And, again, we would not resist it, so –
CHAIR: Okay.  I’ll just [inaudible] my colleagues, do you think we’re going to need them
again?
[Sotto voce discussion]
CHAIR: I think it’s probably best if we just retire for two minutes and discuss this and
then we’ll get back to you.  So, if we just retire for two minutes and then see
where we are.

(The Panel were in camera from 3.40 p.m. until 3.45 p.m.)
CHAIR: Okay ladies and gentlemen, we’re back again.  I think we have a way forward.  I
think, in the circumstances, the Panel will be working on this and we won’t be
producing a written decision until Monday by any stretch of the imagination.  So,
we should some time on Monday have a written decision.  That, we can certainly
hand down but, should there be a need for an application for an interim order, my
understanding is that you have a right to make a presentation in terms of that
application and you need to be on telephone or otherwise available in order to do
that.
MR HOYLE: Of course, sir.
CHAIR: Now, what I would suggest then is that you, or you may have already, provide
the Hearing Officer with an email and with a telephone number on which you can
be available should there be a need for an interim order application.  Does that
sound a reasonable way forward?
MR HOYLE: Indeed sir.  And if there is no interim order beyond an interim conditions of
practice that needs to be challenged, I would be grateful if I could be let – if we
could be told as soon as possible by telephone or email, the outcome.
CHAIR: Yes.
MR HOYLE: I mean, obviously, we will be spending the weekend hoping for the best
but, obviously, it might be that it has to be, go through the administration in order
to be – well then again, no, Ms Wing is very efficient, I’ve worked alongside her
before.  So, I don’t envisage any problems with that sir.
CHAIR: Okay, in that case, in terms of timing, I’m not sure that we’re going to have a
written decision with all our reasons set out so that the Panel is copper bottomed
on this so to speak before noon and we don’t know how long after that it might
take.  So, what I think I would ask is that you could provide the Hearing Officer
with an email and with a telephone number and are available on that from noon
onwards.  Is that –
MR HOYLE: Yes sir, and your terminology of copper bottomed is music to my ears.

CHAIR: Okay.  Is that a reasonable way forward to the HCPC?
PRESENTING OFFICER: Absolutely, yes.
CHAIR: Okay.  So, in terms of your involvement –
PRESENTING OFFICER: I will be coming back.
CHAIR: You will be coming back indeed but I don’t think there’s any need for you to be
back here at 9.30 a.m.  I think we’ll probably not be in a position to do anything
before, probably, 12.00 p.m.  Does that sound reasonable?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes, not before 12.00 p.m.
PRESENTING OFFICER: That’s music to my ears, thank you.
CHAIR: So, at 12.00 p.m., at that point either we will have a decision for you in which
case we can communicate it or we will be able to contact you and tell you where
we are with it and how long we’re likely to be.  Does that sound a reasonable way
forward?
MR HOYLE: Yes, sir.  It does, in fact –
LEGAL ASSESSOR: And then I think what will happen is, you will be emailed the
decision, you will have an opportunity to think about it and then, if there is an
application for an interim order, a short period of time after that, after you’ve
considered the written decision, you will be on the phone, Ms Ryan will be in
person and that’s how – submissions will be made and the Panel will make their
decision following any legal advice.
MR HOYLE: That is absolutely perfect for us, sir.  Thank you very much.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you.
CHAIR: Okay, in which case then, unless there is any other matter we need to deal with?
PRESENTING OFFICER: No, thank you.
CHAIR: No?  In that case, then, thank you all very much for your attendance today.  We
will see or hear from you as appropriate on Monday at the various times we have
agreed.  Until then, have a good weekend.
MR HOYLE: And we are grateful to you all, thank you very much.
(The Panel went in camera at 3.49 p.m. 

and the hearing was adjourned until 13 March 2017)