Conduct & Competence Committee. Substantive Meeting. 20 October Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Conduct & Competence Committee. Substantive Meeting. 20 October Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ"

Caren Beasley
5 years ago
Views:

1 Conduct & Competence Committee Substantive Meeting 20 October 2016 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 2 Stratford Place, London E20 1EJ Registrant: NMC PIN: Sean Michael Ridout 10H3375E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub Part 1 Adult 20 February 2014 Type of Case: Area of Registered Address: Panel Members: Legal Assessor: Panel Secretary: Facts proved: Facts not proved: Fitness to practise: Sanction: Interim order: Misconduct England Stuart Gray (Chair - Lay member) Wilma Hainsworth (Lay member) Julie Tindale (Registrant member) Michael Bell Zainab Mohamed All None Impaired Striking-off order Interim suspension order 18 months Page 1 of 9

2 Decision on Proof of Service: The panel considered whether notice of this meeting has been served in accordance with Rules 11A and 34 of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 ( the Rules ) and decided that there was evidence that it had. In reaching its decision, the panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The panel noted that the notice letter was sent by both first class post and recorded delivery to Mr Ridout s registered address on 13 September The panel was also satisfied that the notice was sent by first class post more than 28 days in advance of this meeting. The panel therefore found that notice had been served in accordance with the Rules. Consensual Panel Determination ( CPD ) The panel considered the provisional agreement for a CPD that had been reached with regard to this case between Mr Ridout and the NMC. The agreement, which was put before the panel, sets out Mr Ridout s admission of the charges, and his acceptance of his fitness to practise being currently impaired by reason of his conviction. It is further proposed in the provisional agreement that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case would be a striking-off order. The agreement was signed by Mr Ridout on 11 October 2016 and on behalf of the NMC on 13 October The panel was referred to the provisional agreement reached by the parties. That provisional agreement reads as follows: Conduct and Competence Committee Consensual panel determination: provisional agreement Mr Ridout is aware of the CPD hearing. Mr Ridout does not intend to attend the hearing and is content for it to proceed in his and his representative s absence. Mr Ridout will endeavour to be available by telephone should any clarification on any point be required. Page 2 of 9

3 The Nursing and Midwifery Council and Mr Sean Michael Ridout ( the Registrant ), PIN 10H3375E ( the parties ) agree as follows: Charges 1. Mr Ridout admits the following charge: That you, a registered nurse: On 24 February 2016 at the Crown Court sitting at Chichester were found guilty following a trial by jury and convicted of 1/1 Sexual Assault on a female No penetration. Facts 2. The facts are as follows: 2.1. On 12 October 2014, the Registrant was involved in a social outing with work colleagues. Over the course of the evening he became thoroughly inebriated and made a number of advances towards a female colleague ( Colleague A ) with whom he was drinking The Registrant s advances were rebuffed on each occasion The social outing concluded in the Registrant and Colleague A staying at the house of another colleague, with whom they had also been drinking Colleague A went to sleep in one of the home s bedrooms and was later awoken by the Registrant. The Registrant had entered Colleague A s bedroom was touching her naked genitalia Colleague A having awoken, the Registrant beat a retreat and left the house. Page 3 of 9

4 2.6. On 24 February 2016, the Registrant was convicted, following trial by jury, of the above referenced offence. As will be apparent from the forgoing, the Registrant entered a plea of not guilty On 30 March 2016, the Registrant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. He was also ordered to carry out 300 hours unpaid work before 29 March 2017 and to attend with the Probation service at the times and places as directed for 18 months. Further, the Registrant was placed on the Sexual Offenders Register for 10 years and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of Impairment 3. The Registrant admits that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction and with reference to the factors outlined by Dame Janet Smith in the 5 th Shipman Report he admits that he: 3.1. Has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and 3.2. Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the professions. 4. The Registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence which arose out of the inappropriate touching of his female colleague. Whilst this conviction was unrelated to his clinical practice it is, without more, a breach of fundamental tenets of the professions as expressed by The Code: Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives (2015), namely Standard 20 and in particular Standards 20.1, The 2015 Code was in force at the time of the Registrant s conviction and it is to this that reference is made. Page 4 of 9

5 Sanction 5. The appropriate sanction in this case is a striking off order. 6. The Registrant s conviction and the conduct underlying the same are fundamentally incompatible with being a registered professional. With reference to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance the Registrant s actions were a serious departure from relevant professional standards (see paragraph 4), caused Colleague A emotional harm, can properly be described as serious misconduct of a sexual nature and, of course, resulted in the Registrant s conviction. 7. In agreeing that a striking off order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction the parties note the comments of Mr Justice Newman in CHRE v (1) GDC and (2) Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) 2 and accept that the circumstances in this case do not plainly justify a different course to the general principle expressed in that case. 8. The Registrant s conviction is for conduct so serious that it cannot properly be described as being at the lower end of the spectrum of impaired fitness to practice. Accordingly, this is not a case where it would be sufficient of proportionate to take no further action or impose a caution. 9. There are no identifiable areas of the Registrant s practice in need of assessment and retraining and therefore a conditions of practice order would be neither appropriate nor workable. In any event the Registrant s conviction 2 [54] 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. Such circumstances could arise in connection with a period of disqualification from driving or time allowed by the court for the payment of a fine. The rationale for the principle is not that it can serve to punish the practitioner whilst serving his sentence, but that good standing in a profession must be earned if the reputation of the profession is to be maintained. Page 5 of 9

6 is so serious that a conditions of practice order would not be a proportionate sanction, sufficient to protect the public interest. 10. The facts underlying the Registrant s conviction include multiple aspects which are fundamentally incompatible with continued registration and, whilst his conviction arises out of a single instance of misconduct, this misconduct was particularly grave such that a suspension order would also not be sufficient or proportionate. 11. It is also otherwise in the public interest for there to be an interim suspension order of 18 months to cover the appeal period. 12. The parties understand that this provisional agreement cannot bind a panel, and that the final decision on findings impairment and sanction is a matter for the panel. The parties understand that, in the event that a panel does not agree with this provisional agreement, the admissions to the charges set out at section 1 above, and the agreed statement of facts set out at section 2 above, may be placed before a differently constituted panel that is determining the allegation, provided that it would be relevant and fair to do so. This marks the end of the provisional CPD agreement between the NMC and Mr Ridout. Decision and reasons on CPD agreement The panel has very carefully considered all the terms of the provisional CPD agreement as set out above. The panel has also had careful regard to the NMC s Consensual Panel Determination Guidance effective from 9 March The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. Page 6 of 9

7 Determination on facts The panel noted that Mr Ridout admitted the charge as set out in the provisional CPD agreement. The panel therefore found the charge proved by way both of the certificate of conviction and his admission. The panel also adopted the facts as set out in the provisional CPD agreement. Determination on impairment The panel then moved on to consider whether Mr Ridout s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. The NMC has defined fitness to practise as a registrant s suitability to remain on the register in unrestricted practice. In reaching its decision on impairment the panel had regard to all the evidence before it, including a copy of the Certificate of Conviction from Chichester Court dated 31 May The panel also had sight of the sentencing judgment of Judge Christopher Parker QC dated 30 March The panel agreed with the reasons regarding current impairment as set out in the CPD agreement. The panel noted that Mr Ridout accepted that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. Mr Ridout s conviction on 24 February 2016 concerned a sexual assault on a female, his work colleague, whilst she was asleep. The panel considered that this was a significant departure from the standards and conduct expected of registered nurse and that his actions breached fundamental tenets of the nursing profession. The panel considered that this behaviour was unacceptable and brought the nursing profession into disrepute. Mr Ridout s conviction is of a serious nature and that his behaviour leading to his conviction was deplorable. The panel cannot be assured that there is no risk of repetition because Mr Ridout has provided no evidence of insight, reflection or any remedial steps taken by him. The panel noted in particular Judge Parkers comment that you had been quite unable properly to bring yourself to accept that what you did was Page 7 of 9

8 wrong. In any event, the acts leading to his conviction is by its nature difficult to remediate. The panel had no doubt that the need to protect the public and uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impaired fitness to practise were not made in the particular circumstances of this case. It therefore determined that that Mr Ridout s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. Determination on sanction In reaching its decision on sanction the panel had regard to all the information before it, including the sentencing remarks made by Judge Parker and the reasons outlined in the proposed CPD which it adopted. The panel was mindful that the agreed sanction between the parties was a striking-off order. The panel took into account the advice set out in the Indicative Sanctions Guidance ( ISG ). The panel bore in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have that effect, but is intended to protect patients and satisfy the wider public interest. The wider public interest includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the NMC as the regulator, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The panel noted and accepted paragraph 8 of the CPD, that Mr Ridout s conviction cannot be properly be described as being at the lower end of the spectrum of impaired fitness to practise. It therefore would not be appropriate or proportionate to take no further action or impose a caution order. Nor would it protect the public or satisfy the public interest. Further, for the same reasons set out in the CPD at paragraph 9, it determined that a conditions of practice order would be neither appropriate nor Page 8 of 9

9 workable. A condition of practice order would not be proportionate or sufficient to protect the public and satisfy the public interest. The panel found that Mr Ridout s conviction, which included multiple aspects, was of a serious nature. In the panel s judgement, his conduct involved a significant departure from the standards expected of a registered nurse and was fundamentally incompatible with Mr Ridout remaining on the register. The panel therefore determined that a suspension order would not be a sufficient, appropriate or proportionate sanction. In respect of the ISG, the panel has concluded that the following paragraphs are applicable in the particular circumstances of this case: 71.1, 71.2, 71.3, 72.2, 72.4 and The panel accepted that the only sufficient, appropriate and proportionate order in this case is that of a striking-off. A striking-off order would protect the public and will maintain public confidence in the nursing profession and the NMC as the regulator. For the reasons set out above, the panel has determined that the proposed consensual panel determination is the appropriate course to be taken. The panel also endorsed the comments made in paragraph 11 of the CPD agreement and determined that an interim suspension order for 18 months should be imposed to cover the appeal period. The panel considered that an interim suspension order was necessary for the same reasons as the substantive order. Not to make such an order would be incompatible with its earlier findings and with the substantive sanction that it has imposed. The panel was satisfied that it was also in the public interest. This decision will be confirmed to Mr Ridout in writing. That concludes this determination. Page 9 of 9

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting

Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting NMC, 20 Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7LN 18 June 2014 Name of Registrant: Mr Matthew Robin Pitts NMC PIN: 93A0777E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse