HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC MAYCOCK, Andrew Edward Registration No: 170502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2018 Outcome: Erased with Immediate order of Suspension Andrew Edward MAYCOCK, a dental nurse, NVQ L3 Dental Nursing & VRQ L3 Dental Nursing City & Guilds 2008, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 14 May 2018 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge That being a registered dental care professional: 1. On 4 September 2017, at Stafford Crown Court, you were convicted on indictment, of three counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978; 2. On 4 September 2017, at Stafford Crown Court, you were convicted on indictment, of three counts of distributing indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and that as a result of the facts alleged at head of charges 1 and 2 above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction. As Mr Maycock did not attend and was not represented at the hearing, the Chairman made the following statement regarding proof of service. He addressed this to the Counsel for the GDC. Decision on Service of Notice of Hearing: Mr Maycock was neither present nor represented at this hearing. In his absence, the Committee first considered whether notice of this hearing had been served in accordance with rules 13 and 65 of the General Dental Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2006 (the rules). The Committee received a copy of the Notification of Hearing, dated 12 April 2018, which was sent to Mr Maycock by way of special delivery and by email. The Committee also had sight of an extract from the Royal Mail Track and Trace website showing that the item was delivered and signed for in the name MAYCOCK. The Committee was satisfied that the notice letter contained proper notification of today s hearing, including its time, date and location, as well as notification that the Committee has the power to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Maycock. The Committee was satisfied, having regard to the submissions made by Mr Round, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC) and having accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser, that notice of this hearing was served on Mr Maycock in accordance with the rules. MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -1/8-
Proceeding in absence: The Committee then considered, in accordance with rule 54, proceeding in the absence of Mr Maycock. The Committee had regard to the submissions made by Mr Round and the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee was mindful that this discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and caution as referred to in the case of R. v Jones (Anthony William), (No.2) [2002] UKHL 5. The Committee was aware that this discretion was not absolute, but it must consider all the circumstances of Mr Maycock s absence, and the nature of the case against him when reaching any decision regarding proceeding in his absence. In deciding whether to proceed in the absence of Mr Maycock, the Committee weighed its responsibilities for public protection and the expeditious disposal of the case with Mr Maycock s right to a fair hearing. The Committee noted that Mr Maycock had written to the GDC on 23 February 2018 stating, Thank you for the invitation to attend the hearing, with respect I will not be attending the hearing and choose to submit written evidence. Mr Maycock also emailed the GDC on 30 April 2018 confirming that he has no amendments to the bundle for the hearing. The Committee considered that it is unlikely that any adjournment, although none has been sought, would serve any useful purpose in the circumstances nor would it be likely to result in Mr Maycock s attendance on any future date. The Committee was aware that the charges in this case involve serious criminal convictions and Mr Maycock has provided written submissions but not appointed a representative to attend on his behalf. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that Mr Maycock has voluntarily waived his right to attend today. Having weighed the interests of Mr Maycock with those of the GDC and the public interest in an expeditious disposal of this hearing, the Committee has determined to proceed in Mr Maycock s absence. Decision on whether to hear the case in private: The Committee noted the request from Mr Maycock to the case examiners, dated 25 October 2017, in which he requested that nothing be printed. It decided that it was appropriate consider whether to hold this hearing in private, based on the expressed wishes of Mr Maycock. It heard submissions from Mr Round and accepted the advice of the legal adviser. The Committee therefore considered whether to hear this case in private. It concluded that given the nature of the convictions the public interest in having these matters aired publicly was high. It appreciated the concerns raised by Mr Maycock in his correspondence to the GDC, however, as the matters have already been made public through the court proceedings the Committee concluded that it would be perverse not to do likewise for these proceedings. On 14 May 2018 the Chairman announced the findings of fact to the Counsel for the GDC: In reaching its decisions on the facts, the Committee considered all the evidence adduced in this case. The Committee had regard to the submissions made by Mr Round on behalf of the GDC and took into account the written submissions from Mr Maycock. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -2/8-
In reaching its decision on the facts, the Committee was aware that the burden of proof rests on the GDC, and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. This means that the facts will only be proved if the Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the matters occurred as alleged. The evidence put before the Committee consisted of a number of documents, including a copy of the certificate of conviction from the Crown Court at Stafford, a record of the case summary and the transcript of the police interview with Mr Maycock. It also had sight of the standard directions document completed by Mr Maycock and his correspondence to the GDC throughout these proceedings. The Committee made the following finding: 1. On 4 September 2017, at Stafford Crown Court, you were convicted on indictment, of three counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978; Admitted and Found Proved Having had sight of written admissions from Mr Maycock and a signed certified copy of the certificate of conviction, the facts are found proved in accordance with Rule 57 (5) which states; 57 - (5) Where a respondent has been convicted of a criminal offence (a) a copy of the certificate of conviction, certified by a competent officer of a court in the United Kingdom (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be conclusive proof of the conviction; 2. On 4 September 2017, at Stafford Crown Court, you were convicted on indictment, of three counts of distributing indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978; We move to Stage Two. Admitted and Found Proved Having had sight of written admissions from Mr Maycock and a signed certified copy of the certificate of conviction, the facts are found proved in accordance with Rule 57 (5) which states; 57 - (5) Where a respondent has been convicted of a criminal offence (a) a copy of the certificate of conviction, certified by a competent officer of a court in the United Kingdom (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be conclusive proof of the conviction; On 14 May 2018 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Having announced its finding on all the facts, the Committee heard submissions on the matters of impairment and sanction. MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -3/8-
On 9 March 2017 a police officer attended Mr Maycock s address and arrested him for possessing and making indecent images of children. As a result of his arrest a search was undertaken of Mr Maycock s premises and a number of items were seized for full forensic examination. Mr Maycock was interviewed under caution on the same date. Both Mr Maycock s computer and his mobile phone were found to contain indecent images of children, including 33 Category A images, 30 Category B images and 56 Category C images. It also showed that Mr Maycock distributed 3 Category A images, 1 category B image and 2 Category C images to other people via the internet. On 4 September 2017 Mr Maycock appeared at the Crown Court at Stafford where he entered guilty pleas to all six counts on the indictment. The matters were adjourned for a pre-sentence report to be provided by the Probation Service. On 6 October 2017 Mr Maycock was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, to required to sign onto the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years. He was also made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO). As a requirement of his suspended sentence Mr Maycock was ordered to carry out 150 hours unpaid work. As a requirement of the SHPO Mr Maycock is prohibited from: 1. using any device capable of accessing the internet unless i. he notifies the monitoring police officer within 3 days of its acquisition, ii. iii. it has the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use, and he makes the device available on request for inspection by the monitoring police officer or monitoring officer 2. Deleting any usage or search history on any internet-enabled device used or controlled by him at any time 3. Installing any anti-forensic software on any device capable of accessing the internet 4. Using the internet or social media to communicate with any person under the age of 16 5. Possessing any device capable of storing digital images unless he makes it available on request for inspection by a monitoring police officer or monitoring officer 6. Having any unsupervised contact or communication of any kind with any female or male child under the age of 16 other than i. Such as inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful daily life, or ii. With the prior consent of the child s parent or guardian (who has knowledge of his convictions) and with the express prior approval of Social Services for the area. Mr Maycock submitted written submissions, which included the following statements: I do not condone my actions and take full responsibility for them. As mentioned previously I have been given a second chance by the courts and I guess part of my punishment was having to give up my previous careers. I really do miss them but I understand I have to pay for my crime and this is part of it. MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -4/8-
I have not worked in dentistry since my initial arrest last March. I would not feel appropriate working in dentistry even if I could. Since my arrest I have offered to rescind my registration and never work in dentistry nor any kind of care work again. And I stand by this. As much as I loved being a DCP, I will never work as one again nor have anything to do with the kind of work in the future or any kind of care work. I am not a bad person, I made a mistake for which I am paying for this. As I said previously if I could take back time and never have done any of this, I would have. I am sorry I have wasted so much time, energy and expense with all of this. Once again I would like to apologise for bringing the GDC into disrepute and would like to try to move on and start a new life with a new future. In his submissions Mr Round addressed the Committee on the need to have regard to protecting the public and the wider public interest. This included the need to declare and maintain proper standards and maintain public confidence in the profession and in the GDC as a regulatory body. He invited the Committee to take into account all of the circumstances of this case, including the impact that this type of offending can have on the public as well as the public interest. He informed the Committee that although the probation service stated that Mr Maycock was at low risk of re-offending he poses a medium risk of serious harm to children. Mr Round referred the Committee to the case of Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v (1) General Dental Council (2) Alexander Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) and the general principle that, where a registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he had satisfactorily completed his sentence. Mr Round addressed the Committee on the matter of sanction and submitted that given the circumstances of this case, the need to protect the public and the inherent public interest, the only appropriate sanction is that of erasure. He referred the Committee to the Guidance for the Practice Committees as published by the GDC. The Committee fully considered all the evidence in this case as well as the submissions made by Mr Round and the written submissions from Mr Maycock. It accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. Decision on impairment: The Committee proceeded to decide if, as a result of his convictions Mr Maycock s fitness to practise is currently impaired. Dental professionals occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both their patients and the public s trust in the profession. Mr Maycock s actions were extremely serious and the Committee was not satisfied that he has full insight into his actions. It accepted that Mr Maycock has demonstrated that he has some insight and has started to address his offending, including by completing the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement as directed by the court. Mr Maycock has apologised for his actions and for bringing the GDC into disrepute. However, the MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -5/8-
Committee considered that his demonstration of remorse appears to be primarily relating to the impact of these matters on him. The Committee considered that there is the possibility of Mr Maycock of being rehabilitated, however he is still in the very early stages of that process. The Committee determined that the criminal offences for which Mr Maycock was convicted are serious. The Committee considered that given all of the information before it his actions do bring the profession into disrepute and undermine the public s confidence in the profession. It would also impact negatively on the ability of the regulator to reinforce standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession if a finding of impairment were not made. The issues identified in this case were, in the view of the Committee, sufficiently serious that the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. It concluded that given the comments made in the Pre-Sentence report, and taking into account the seriousness of the offending, there does remain a risk of repetition. Further, the Committee considered that the principles set out in the case of Fleishman apply, as Mr Maycock is only 6 months into a 24 month suspended prison sentence. Having regard to all of this the Committee has concluded that Mr Maycock s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. Decision on sanction The Committee next considered what sanction, if any, to impose on Mr Maycock s registration. It recognised that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive, although it may have that effect, but rather to protect patients and the wider public interest. The Committee has taken into account the GDC s Guidance for the Practice Committees. The Committee applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Mr Maycock s own interests. The Committee has considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least serious. The Committee concluded that there was evidence that Mr Maycock poses a risk to the public through his behaviour. The Committee had already concluded that he does not have full insight into his behaviour and the impact on those involved. The Committee noted that the behaviour that led to the convictions was not isolated and occurred over a protracted period of time. The Committee considered that the offences were deliberate actions on Mr Maycock s part and involved serious sexual offences relating to children. In the light of the findings against Mr Maycock the Committee determined that it would be wholly inappropriate to conclude this case without taking any action or with a reprimand, as this would not address the risk to the public, satisfy the public interest and would not proportionate given the seriousness of the issues identified in this case. The Committee next considered whether a period of conditional registration would be appropriate in this case. The Committee determined that it would not be possible to formulate appropriate, workable and verifiable conditions which would address the conduct at the heart of the convictions. Further, conditions would not satisfy the public interest. The Committee considered whether a suspension order would be proportionate and appropriate in this case. MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -6/8-
The Committee concluded that, while Mr Maycock has demonstrated some insight, this is incomplete. The Committee further considered that he does pose a risk of harm to the public, and his offending behaviour was premeditated and involved a fundamental breach of trust. The Committee was of the view that the serious, repeated and sexual nature of the convictions is such that it would not be appropriate or proportionate to impose a period of suspension. Sexual offences, particularly involving children, are a serious departure from the standards expected of registered professionals and would be considered as deplorable behaviour by fellow professionals. The Committee concluded that in the circumstances of this case it would be wholly inadequate to suspend Mr Maycock s registration. It bore in mind that Mr Maycock will remain on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years and concluded that a suspension would not be sufficient to address the seriousness of four years of making and distributing indecent images of children. Whilst the Committee recognised that to order that his name be erased from the register is a serious matter, it considered that in the circumstances of this case there is no other means of maintaining public confidence in the profession. The Committee concluded that given the circumstances and nature of Mr Maycock s convictions, public confidence and trust in the profession would be seriously and irrevocably undermined should he be allowed to work as a dental nurse. In the circumstances of this case the Committee concluded that Mr Maycock s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with ongoing registration with the GDC and the only proportionate sanction is that of erasure. The Committee considered that this order is necessary to protect the public, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to send to the public and the profession a clear message about the standard of conduct required of a registered dental practitioner. The interim order currently on Mr Maycock registration is hereby revoked under section 36P (10) of the Dentists Act 1984. Immediate Order: Having directed that Mr Maycock s name be erased from the register the Committee had to consider, in accordance with section 36U of the Act, whether to impose an immediate order to cover the appeal period, or until any appeal against the outcome is heard. The Committee has considered the submissions made by Mr Round that an immediate order of suspension should be made on the grounds that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. He applied for this order to cover any possible appeal period and submitted that this would be compatible with the Committee s findings. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee was satisfied that an immediate order of suspension was necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest. The Committee concluded that given its findings and reasons for the substantive order of erasure to direct otherwise would be wholly inconsistent, particularly in light of the determination that Mr Maycock remains a risk to the public. If, at the end of the appeal period of 28 days, Mr Maycock has not lodged an appeal, this immediate order of suspension will lapse, and his name will be erased from the register. If he MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -7/8-
does lodge an appeal, this immediate order will continue in effect until that appeal is determined. That concludes the case. MAYCOCK, A E Professional Conduct Committee May 2018 Page -8/8-