HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC"

Shannon Ball
6 years ago
Views:

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC AYOR-AYO, Auma Hilda Registration No: 198660 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2017 Outcome: Suspended for 12 months with immediate suspension (with a review) Auma Hilda

1 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC AYOR-AYO, Auma Hilda Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE AUGUST 2017 Outcome: Suspended for 12 months with immediate suspension (with a review) Auma Hilda AYOR-AYO, a dental nurse, Qual- National Certificate NEBDN 2010, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 7 August 2017 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge That being a registered dental care professional: 1. On or about the 26 th January 2016, you misused credit card details belonging to Witness 1 to make an online purchase(s). 2. Your conduct in relation to allegation 1 was dishonest. And that by reason of the facts alleged, your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct. On 7 August 2017 the Chairman made the following statement regarding the finding of facts: Ms Ayor-Ayo, This is the Professional Conduct Committee s inquiry into the facts which form the basis of the allegation against you that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. Background You are a registered dental care professional with the General Dental Council (GDC). In January 2016, you were working as a Senior Dental Nurse at the Garden Square Dental Practice where you had worked for approximately five years. Witness 1, a dental surgeon, also worked at the practice for about five years. On 26 January 2016, Witness 1 attended work at the practice. He left his jacket and bag in an unlocked office where members of staff leave their belongings. Witness 1 later noticed a transaction in the sum of made on 26 January 2016 using his American Express credit card that he did not recognise. He did not undertake the transaction, nor did his wife who had her own credit card linked to the same account. Enquiries revealed the following details in relation to the transaction, which was an online purchase: (a) it was timed at 16:24:06 on 26th January 2016; (b) the IP address related to the transaction was ; AYOR-AYO, A H Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -1/6-

2 (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) the vendor was debenhams.com; the goods purchased included children s clothing (aged 6-12 months), women s shoes and a handbag; the customer/shipping name was Hilda AYOR-AYO; the customer address was your address; the customer telephone number was your mobile telephone number; the customer/shipping address was your home address; and the goods were delivered to your home address and signed for on receipt on 1st February The IP address served the practice. At the time of the transaction, you had a young child of an age consistent with the items purchased. On 9th March 2016, the you were asked about the transaction by the practice principals and confronted with some of the evidence. You stated that you did not carry out the transaction. You were suspended from work pending an investigation. Following a disciplinary hearing held on 18th March 2016, you were dismissed. The Council instructed a digital forensic analyst, Mr Boughey, to examine two Dell desktop computers belonging to the Practice. Mr Boughey found no web history entries confirming that the website was accessed on 26 January He found two Chrome Autofill form records that were found to be created on 26 January This evidence suggests that a user filled out a form on a website relating to the first and last name of Witness 1. There is evidence to suggest that the web browsing history on the Dell laptop may have been cleared. Decision on the facts At the commencement of the hearing, Mr McDonagh, Counsel on your behalf, made admissions to the two allegations in the charge against you. The Committee carefully considered all the evidence before it. It also took account of the agreed facts submitted by Mr Warrington. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In accordance with that advice it considered each charge separately. The Committee s findings are as follows: 1. On or about the 26th January 2016, you misused credit card details belonging to Witness 1 to make an online purchase(s). Admitted and found proved The Committee accepts your admission and the Agreed Facts as submitted by both parties. The Committee accepts the opinion of the Council s expert, Mr Boughey. It has noted the itemised order sheet from Debenhams and the delivery note from Hermes which shows that the items were signed for at your address. The order sheet included items for a child of the same age as your son, ladies handbag and shoes. Witness 1 confirmed that the transaction was not undertaken by him or his wife nor was it authorised by them. Witness 1 was in the middle of a consultation in one of the practice s consultation rooms AYOR-AYO, A H Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -2/6-

3 with a dental nurse present with him at that point. You were in the reception area and the only other person present at the practice with access to the computer and Witness 1 s belongings. The Committee found this charge proved. 2. Your conduct in relation to allegation 1 was dishonest. We move to Stage Two. Admitted and found proved The Committee accepted your admission and the agreed facts as submitted which includes the opinion of the Council s expert, Mr Boughey. It found that using a credit card belonging to another person without the knowledge, consent or authority of the owner is clearly dishonest conduct. The Committee found this charge proved. On 8 August 2017 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Ms Ayor-Ayo, At the start of this hearing you admitted and the Committee found proved that on or about the 26 January 2016 you misused credit card details belonging to Witness 1 to make an online purchase. Your conduct in so doing was dishonest. Having announced its decision on the facts, the Committee received a stage 2 bundle from you which included testimonials, Continuing Professional Development (CPD) certificates and a medical report. The Committee also received a stage 2 bundle on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC). The Committee heard oral evidence from you. The Committee, having received legal advice, acknowledges that its decisions on misconduct and impairment are matters for its own independent judgement. There is no burden or standard of proof at this stage of the proceedings. The Committee was referred to the cases of Roylance (no 2) v GMC [2000] AC 311; and Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin). The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Misconduct The Committee has first considered whether the facts admitted and found proved amount to misconduct. Mr McDonagh on your behalf conceded misconduct. You copied the credit card details of your colleague onto a piece of paper and used them to make an online purchase order on Debenhams.com. You did not have the authority or consent of the owner of the credit card to make the purchase. The credit card was in a room at the Practice where members of staff kept their belongings whilst at work. Witness 1 discovered the transaction and instigated an investigation into the matter. When you were confronted by the Practice about the purchase you had made, you denied using Witness 1 s credit card details. You maintained this denial on four separate occasions. The Committee was of the view that your actions were a serious breach of the trust that your colleagues placed in you. Your actions were dishonest and a serious departure from the standards of conduct expected from a dental professional and would be regarded as deplorable by fellow dental professionals. AYOR-AYO, A H Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -3/6-

4 The Committee is of the view that your conduct breached the GDC s Standards for the Dental Team (September 2013): Standard 1.3 You must be honest and act with integrity You must justify the trust that patients, the public and your colleagues place in you by always acting honestly and fairly in your dealings with them. This applies to any business or education activities in which you are involved as well as to your professional dealings. Standard 9.1 Ensure that your conduct, both at work and in your personal life, justifies patients trust in you and the public s trust in the dental profession You must treat all team members, other colleagues and members of the public fairly, with dignity and in line with the law. Standard 9.4 Co-operate with any relevant formal or informal inquiry and give full and truthful information. The Committee is in no doubt that the facts found proved are serious and amount to misconduct. Impairment The Committee next considered whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your misconduct. It has been referred to the cases of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council and Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). Mr McDonagh on your behalf concedes impairment. The Committee considers that dishonest conduct is difficult to remedy because it is attitudinal in nature. In considering the whether it has been remedied the Committee took account of your oral evidence, your written statement dated 31 July 2017, the evidence of your Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and the testimonials submitted on your behalf. In your statement and your oral evidence, you apologised to the Committee for your actions. You described them as shameful and disgraceful. You explained that the reason for initially denying the allegations was because you were terrified of criminal prosecution and the risk of losing your child in the event of a conviction. You told the Committee that you had not apologised to the Practice or to your colleague whom you had defrauded. You also told the Committee that you had not informed the Police that you in fact committed the fraud as alleged. You denied the allegations now found proved on four separate occasions firstly when you were questioned by the Practice principals who confronted you with some of the evidence on 9 March 2016; secondly at a disciplinary hearing on 18 March 2016 held by the Practice; thirdly in an dated 24 March 2016; and fourthly in your written response to the GDC regarding your referral to the Case Examiners, signed and dated 24 November You did not admit to the allegations until the immediate run-up to the start of the hearing. You made full admissions to the charge in this hearing. The Committee is of the view that your insight is still limited and relatively recent. It also noted some inconsistencies between your oral evidence and the documentary evidence before it. Nevertheless, it considers that you have learnt a salutary lesson from these proceedings. You demonstrated remorse in your oral evidence and expressed regret for your AYOR-AYO, A H Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -4/6-

5 actions. The Committee has concluded that the risk of repetition of this type of behaviour in the future is low. In considering the public interest, the Committee has considered the approach formulated by Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth Report from the Shipman case: that is, the PCC should ask itself: Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor's misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/he: a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or d. has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future. The Committee has found that you acted dishonestly, your conduct breached fundamental tenets of the profession and brought the profession into disrepute. It considers that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public, fully aware of your actions would lose confidence in the profession if a finding of impairment was not made. The Committee therefore determined that, your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your misconduct. Disposal The Committee next considered what action, if any, to take in relation to your registration. It noted the submission made by Mr Warrington that a suspension order for at least 6 months could be considered proportionate. It reminded itself that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive although it may have that effect. The Committee has borne in mind the principle of proportionality. It has also had regard to the Guidance for the Practice Committees including Indicative Sanctions Guidance, October 2016, ( PCC Guidance ). The Committee considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case. It took account of your previous good character and the fact that this was a single and isolated incident. However, there are a range of aggravating factors in this case and they include a finding of dishonest conduct; a financial gain; a breach of trust; and limited insight. The Committee also notes that you have not refunded the money and you have not apologised to Witness 1 or to the Practice where this incident occurred. The Committee is of the view that to conclude this case with no further action would be insufficient to mark the seriousness of your misconduct. The Committee has considered the available sanctions in ascending order starting with the least serious. It has determined that a reprimand would be inappropriate and inadequate given the nature of the dishonest conduct found proved. The Committee then considered whether a conditions of practice order would be appropriate. It is of the view that conditions cannot address the dishonesty findings, given AYOR-AYO, A H Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -5/6-

6 that they are attitudinal in nature. In addition, it considers that conditions are insufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulator. The Committee next considered whether suspension would be sufficient to mark the serious misconduct in this case. You have shown some insight into your behaviour. The evidence before the Committee suggests that your actions were opportunistic and not premeditated. There is also no evidence of repetition or of a harmful deep-seated personality or professional attitudinal problem. The Committee considers that a suspension would be sufficient in this case. However, given the seriousness of your misconduct, it has concluded that a period of no less than 12 months should be imposed on your registration to send a message to the public and the profession that dishonest conduct would not be condoned by the profession and the regulator, and be subject to a review at the end of the suspension period. The Committee did give serious consideration as to whether the sanction of erasure would be appropriate and justifiable in this case but it decided to exercise leniency because of your admissions, evidence of developing insight and remorse. The Committee therefore determined, pursuant to Section 36P (7)(b) of the Dentists Act 1984, as amended, to direct that your registration as a Dental Care Professional be suspended for a period of 12 months. The order will be reviewed prior to the end of the 12 month period. The Committee will now receive submissions on whether an immediate order should be imposed. Decision on immediate order of suspension The Committee took account of the submissions made by Mr Warrington on behalf of the GDC that an immediate order should be imposed on your registration given the seriousness of the dishonesty found proved. Mr McDonagh made no submissions on the matter. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee considers that the serious nature of the dishonesty found proved in this case reached the threshold for the imposition of an immediate order on public interest grounds. It therefore determined that an immediate order of suspension is otherwise in the public interest, pursuant to Section 36U (1) of the Dentists Act 1984, as amended. The effect of the foregoing direction and this order is that your registration will be suspended with immediate effect and unless you exercise your right to appeal, the substantive direction of suspension will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed served on you. Should you exercise your right to appeal, this order for immediate suspension will remain in place pending the resolution of any appeal proceedings. That concludes the case. AYOR-AYO, A H Professional Conduct Committee August 2017 Page -6/6-

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC UPTON, Natalie Jane Registration No: 110087 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JULY 2018 Outcome: Suspension for 12 months with immediate suspension (with a review) Natalie UPTON, a