Striking off
We recognise that striking off is a very serious step. A striking-off order will only be imposed in cases where the panel feels that there is no other adequate way to protect the public and maintain public confidence. Circumstances in which a striking-off order may be considered include serious convictions involving violence or sexual misconduct, or where there has been dishonesty or a serious abuse of trust.
Any action the panel takes is intended to protect the public and is not intended as a punishment. The panel will always consider the individual circumstances of a case and take account of what has been said by everyone at the hearing before deciding what to do.
In hearings of the health committee or where the allegation relates to lack of competence, the panel will not have the option to strike off a registrant at the first hearing. This is because we recognise that in cases where ill health has impaired fitness to practise, or where competence has fallen below expected standards, it is possible that the registrant’s health may improve or, in competence cases the registrant may receive extra training or supervised practice.
Friday, 21 November 2008
Striking is not a punishment; Mr M
Holding onto this theme of striking and being struck off, I looked on the web-site to see how the HPC define it. I have copied and pasted the item below, and inked the page to the heading here above, but want to highlight three points in particular. First it is a very serious step. Second, it is not intended as a punishment, but as a last resort to protect the public. Third, it appears to last forever - there is no mention of a time scale. Given the first two statements, the hearing of Mr M seems in breach of the HPC remit. If this were a game, I might point out that the HPC are saying one thing and doing another, which in their terms is grounds for prosecution. But it is not a game, it is a serious business to deprive someone of their livlihood, and I recall that Mr M had been doing this work for 25 years. My question now is, what can and should be done to maintain the possibility of belief in the system of ordinary British justice? Something is clearly out of kilter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


2 comments:
Hello Janet. Warmest congratulations on your sterling work of de-constructing the HPC and its self-serving 'adjudications' re fitness to practice.
Maybe what's needed next is an alternative web-site to shadow the HPC and their 'protection racket' from the perspective of Ordinary Members of the Public, in whose name and by whose government all this so-called regulation is being carried out. Just a thought.
Dear Bob,
thanks for your comment, and for your idea to set up a web-site. I'd be very happy to hear more if you've any practical tips for the site and content.
For now,
Janet
Post a Comment