Notice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee Name: Paula Curran Registration No: 2002171 Date: 30 January 2013 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Conduct Committee of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council, at its meeting on 24 January 2013, made the following decision about your registration with the Northern Ireland Social Care Council: The Committee found the facts proved; The Committee found that you have committed misconduct; The Committee decided to remove you from the register. Charges: That, being registered under the Health and Personal Social Services Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 (as amended): 1. On 31 October 2011 you were convicted of the following charge: Defendant on and between the 13 th day of September 2008 and 21 st April 2009 in the County Court Division of Craigavon, pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment of CAROLINE MCKAY and which you knew or ought to have known amounted to harassment, contrary to Articles 3 and 4 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. 2. Your actions as set out in paragraph 1 above were: a. Inappropriate b. Not of a standard to be expected of a registered social care worker And your actions as set out above amount to misconduct, and/or calls into question your suitability to remain on the Social Care Register. Page 1 of 6
Service The registrant was neither present nor represented. The Committee was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing was served on the registrant in accordance with Rule 3 of Part 1 and Rule 4 of Schedule 2 of the NISCC (Conduct) Rules 2007. The legal advice was that the Hearing should proceed in the absence of the registrant, the Committee having been satisfied that service was properly achieved. The Legal Adviser confirmed that he had viewed the relevant documentation, that service had been correctly achieved under the Rules and that the Committee was entitled to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. Background The Committee had limited information about the registrant s background. She was born on 09 February 1984 and was 24 years of age when the behaviour complained of commenced. The Committee understands that she was employed as an assistant residential worker working with adults with learning difficulties at Mainstay Down Care Home. The Committee understands that the registrant left that employment sometime in 2008. The registrant was registered from 2009 and her registration lapsed in January 2012. Evidence The Committee received a bundle of documents including a certificate of conviction dated the 28 February 2012 which was admitted in evidence pursuant to Regulation 11 (5) of the NISCC Conduct Rules 2007. The Committee also received police statements compiled as part of the police investigation. The registrant did not attend nor submit any material for the Committee s consideration. Finding of Facts The Committee find the facts in Charges 1 and 2 proved. Reasons: The Committee was provided with a certificate of conviction which demonstrated that the registrant was convicted at Lisburn Magistrates Court on 31 October 2011 in her absence. The charge stated that between 13 September 2008 and 21 April 2009 the registrant pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment of a woman contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. The first police statement indicates that the registrant admitted making repeated anonymous phone calls from her mobile Page 2 of 6
number from September to November 2008. The registrant admitted that she had been drunk when she sent these messages. The registrant further admitted sending a text containing the sentence I will fucking kill you whilst under the influence of alcohol. The police indicated that they were prepared to administer a caution to the registrant, but she failed to attend. The registrant continued to send harassing messages. During an interview in June 2009 the registrant further admitted sending texts and calls to the same female in April 2009. The texts and calls followed the same pattern of texts and calls she had sent in 2008. The Legal Adviser advised the Committee as follows: He advised that if one was looking at the Rules or Regulation 11(5) it was proper for the Committee to accept the certificate of conviction. He reminded the Committee that this was the fact finding stage not mitigation or misconduct. He asked them to consider the totality of the documentary evidence that they have received. He reminded the Committee that the burden of proof concerning the facts lies upon the Council. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. He advised that in this type of case the Committee may not have too much difficulty with this on the basis of the evidence that it is based on a criminal conviction which is a matter of public record. He advised that he would be making sure that the Committee refers itself to the relevant portions of evidence and does not consider irrelevant portions of evidence when coming to its final decision in relation to the charges. Following a query in relation to the registrant s lapse of registration and the Committee s jurisdiction to hear the matter the Legal Adviser, having looked into the matter, confirmed that her status on the NISCC computer was that she remained registered and that the Committee had proper jurisdiction to hear and determine the whole of the case. For avoidance of doubt he confirmed that the registrant was registered for the purposes of NISCC or the Committee whether or not she had paid her fees or applied to renew her registration. Misconduct In relation to both charges the Committee finds the registrant guilty of misconduct. The Committee took into consideration the nature of the criminal charge that the registrant was convicted of. The Committee considers that the registrant was in breach of the NISCC Code of Practice for Social Care Workers in particular; Page 3 of 6
Code 2: As a Social Care Worker, you must strive to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of service users and carers. This includes; 2.1 Being honest and trustworthy Code 5: As a Social Care worker you must uphold public trust and confidence in Social Carer Services. In particular you must not; 5.8 behave in a way in work or outside work, which would call into question your suitability to work in social care services. The Legal Adviser reminded the Committee of the definition of misconduct as provided in the NISCC Conduct Rules 2007 and the application of the NISCC Code of Practice for Social Care Workers. He advised that the Committee would be directed to consider whether or not the registrant s behaviour calls into question her suitability to remain on the register. He confirmed that he would be reminding the members of the Committee that the relevant test here, was misconduct, and drawing their attention to the submissions in this regard and to look at the provisions of the Code, including the provisions that were highlighted at Section 5 and to bed their reasons by reference to the Code. Sanction The Committee is mindful that the purpose of sanctions is not punitive. Sanctions are imposed to the extent it is necessary to protect the public. The other relevant considerations include maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned, maintaining confidence in the NISCC regulatory process and the deterrent effect on other registrants. In order to ensure that no more severe sanction is imposed than is required by these demands, the Committee considered the available sanctions in Rule 25 of Schedule 2 in ascending order of gravity. In addition, during its considerations, the Committee has also had regard to the principle of proportionality and the need to strike a balance between the interests of the public and the rights of the registrant. The Committee has given due consideration to the NISCC Indicative Sanctions Guidance and has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee gave particular weight to the following paragraphs of the Guidance Page 4 of 6
4.9 evidence that the behaviour would not have caused direct or indirect harm to service users; evidence of insight into failings and of willingness to change the behaviour; behaviour was an isolated incident, which was not deliberate; genuine and timely expression of regret/apologies; acting under duress; previous good history and good character; no repetition of behaviour since incident; evidence that rehabilitative/corrective steps have been taken; relevant and appropriate references and testimonials. 4.13 serious incident of misconduct where suitability to be registered is impaired and where a lesser sanction is not sufficient, but removal is not warranted; behaviour is not fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be a registered social care worker in the long term; interests of service users and the public are sufficiently protected by suspension; no real risk of repeating the behaviour; no evidence of harmful deep-seated personality or attitudinal problems; no evidence of a repetition of the behaviour since the incident/s; insight; where the evidence demonstrates that the Registrant will be able to resolve or remedy the cause of the misconduct during the period of suspension. 4.17 persistent lack of insight into seriousness of actions or consequences; blatant disregard for the system of registration which is designed to safeguard the interests of service users, the public and the reputation and standards of the social care profession; a serious departure from the relevant professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Social Care Workers. In view of the foregoing, the Committee has considered all of the sanctions in ascending order, and as follows: Admonishment The Committee did not consider that admonishment was a suitable, appropriate or proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case. Referring to Indicative Sanctions Guidance at paragraph 4.9 in particular it could not be said that the registrant satisfied any of the factors set out there. Page 5 of 6
Suspension The Committee did not consider that suspension was the appropriate sanction in this case. The Committee were of the view that if the registrant had engaged in the process that suspension might have been a sanction that they might have imposed. However this registrant did not engage in the process at any time. She failed to attend the hearing and failed to provide any information or documentation on her behalf which the Committee could have considered. The Committee also took into consideration the contents of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance for suspension. Again, the Committee was satisfied that the registrant was not able to address any of the factors set out at paragraph 4.13. In particular the Committee was influenced by the fact that there was absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that the registrant could have used a period of suspension to resolve or remedy the cause or causes of the misconduct giving rise to her criminal conviction in October 2011. Removal The Committee did consider that removal was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. In coming to this decision the committee took into consideration that the registrant did not engage in the NISCC process at any time. She failed to attend the hearing. No mitigation was offered. No expressions of remorse were ever submitted, and she clearly displayed no insight into her actions. The Committee felt that the registrant had displayed a blatant disregard for the system of registration which is designed to safeguard the interests of service users, the public, and the reputation and standards of the social care profession. The Committee also took into consideration the fact that her behaviour, the subject of her conviction, took place over a prolonged period of time, that when she was offered a caution by the police she failed to attend to accept this. Further, she continued to harass the female with texts and phone calls for a further period of time. The Legal Adviser referred the Committee to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance when deciding which sanction to impose and to take into consideration (1) the seriousness of the registrant s misconduct; (2) the protection of the public issue; (3) the public interest in maintaining confidence in social care services; and (4) the important issues of proportionality in any case such as this. Right of Appeal You have the right to appeal this decision to the Care Tribunal. Any appeal must be lodged in writing within 28 days from the date of this Notice of Decision. You should note that the Conduct Committee s decision takes effect from the date upon which it was made. The effect of this decision is that you have been removed from the register. Clerk to the Conduct Committee Date Page 6 of 6