Conduct and Competence Committee Substantive Meeting 23 December 2015 at 2 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ Name of Registrant Nurse: NMC PIN: Richard James Rees 01I2055E Part(s) of the register: Registered Nurse Sub Part 1 Mental Health September 2004 Area of Registered Address: Type of Case: Panel Members: Legal Assessor: England Conviction Philip Jewell (Chair, Lay Member) Rehana Richens (Registrant Member) Mike Collins (Lay Member) John Bromley-Davenport QC Panel Secretary: Josh Dutton Facts proved: All Fitness to practise: Sanction: Impaired Striking-off order Interim Order: Interim suspension order for a period of 18 months Page 1 of 8
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 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 letter was sent by both first class post and recorded delivery to Mr Rees registered address on 18 November 2015. 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 finds that notice has been served in accordance with the Rules. Details of Charge: That you, a registered nurse: 1. Were convicted on 5 May 2015 at the Crown Court sitting at Exeter of: a. Four counts of possession of an indecent photograph or pseudophotograph of a child b. Two counts of making an indecent photograph or pseudophotograph of a child. 2. On 4 June 2015, were sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months and were made subject to a sexual offences prevention order. And in light of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction. Page 2 of 8
Background On 31 March 2014 the NMC received a letter of notification from Devon and Cornwall Police regarding Mr Rees being investigated regarding Possession of indecent photograph(s)/pseudo-photograph(s)/ of a child x 4 contrary to Section 160 Criminal Justice Act 1978, Making indecent photograph(s)/pseudo-photograph(s)/ of a child x 2 contrary to Section 1 (a) Protection of Children Act 1978. The NMC subsequently received a Certificate of Conviction from Exeter Crown Court on 4 June 2015. The incidents that gave rise to the conviction occurred whilst Mr Rees was employed by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust ( the Trust ) as a Registered Nurse working within theatre. The offences dated between 30 March 2011 and 14 March 2014. The police received Intelligence from another UK Law Enforcement Agency indicating that a person using the user name saintrich (subsequently found to be Mr Rees) had been accessing image sharing websites where child abuse images are known to be exchanged. Subsequent police searches uncovered the images now in question. Mr Rees was arrested on 23 March 2014, interviewed and was thereafter released on bail. After forensic analysis of the computer equipment and memory sticks seized from Mr Rees he was re-arrested on 5 March 2015. On 5 May 2015, Mr Rees appeared before Exeter Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to those matters contained within the charge. On 4 June 2015, at Exeter Crown Court, Mr Rees was sentenced to a total sentence of 6 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years or until further order under S.103 for the sexual offences act 2003 with conditions. Page 3 of 8
Decision on Facts: The panel considered all the evidence provided in this case. It heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel had sight of the Standard Directions form returned by Mr Rees in which he made admissions to all of the charges. The panel had sight of a Certificate of Conviction dated 9 June 2015 which indicated that Mr Rees had been convicted on 5 May 2015 for the matters set out in the charges and that sentence was passed at Exeter Crown Court on 4 June 2015. The panel therefore found charges 1 and 2 proved. Determination on impairment: Although on the Standard Directions form Mr Rees had indicated that he admits his fitness to practise is currently impaired, the panel is conscious that fitness to practise is a matter for its professional judgment. In reaching its decision the panel has considered all the information before it. It has accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel had regard to the fact that at the Crown Court, Mr Rees admitted the offences. No patients were harmed, and it is not suggested that the incidents occurred in the workplace. However, these were very serious offences of possessing and making indecent photographs of children. Such conduct involves exploitation of children, which by its nature gravely undermine the public s trust in the profession and seriously injures the reputation of the profession. The panel was mindful that Mr Rees had been deliberately accessing and collecting these images for approximately three years. The panel has no evidence of insight or remorse on the part of Mr Rees, and considered that there is a strong risk of him repeating this very serious behaviour. Page 4 of 8
In the circumstances, Mr Rees has undoubtedly brought the profession into disrepute. He has been in breach of fundamental tenets of the profession. The panel has had well in mind its duty, in the public interest, to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and of behaviour, in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and in the NMC as regulator. The panel has therefore determined that Mr Rees fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction. Decision on sanction The panel has determined to make a striking-off order. In reaching its decision, the panel has considered the NMC Indicative Sanctions Guidance ( ISG ). It has accepted the advice of the legal assessor. The panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors. The mitigating factors are: Mr Rees had pleaded guilty during the criminal proceedings. Mr Rees admitted the charges as drafted by the NMC. The aggravating factors are: Mr Rees behaviour led to criminal convictions for very serious offences. Large number of indecent images involving vulnerable groups. Mr Rees behaviour is known to have occurred over a period of three years. Lack of insight, demonstrated by Mr Rees stating in his police interview that he had been looking for older teenage females and only images that fell within Category C. Page 5 of 8
Mr Rees behaviour demonstrated deep-seated attitudinal problems. The panel first considered whether to take no action, but concluded that this would be manifestly inappropriate in view of the nature of the convictions, and in the light of the panel s duty to uphold proper professional standards. The panel decided that it would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest to take no further action. Criminal conduct of this nature demands a sanction. The panel next considered a caution order. In the light of the serious nature of the convictions and the need to satisfy the public interest, such an order would be wholly insufficient as a sanction. The panel then considered a conditions of practice order. There are no workable or practicable conditions appropriate to conduct of this nature. Furthermore, this would be wholly insufficient as a sanction. The panel therefore considered a suspension order. Mr Rees behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered professional. In the view of the gravity of the charges found proved, a suspension order would be insufficient to protect the public nor would it maintain confidence in the profession. The panel considered the ISG and paid particular attention to paragraphs 44 to 47 which relate to sexual misconduct. The panel noted that paragraph 44 stated: Sexual offences include accessing, viewing, or other involvement in child pornography, which involves the abuse or exploitation of a child. These types of offences gravely undermine patients and the public s trust in the profession and seriously impact on the reputation of the professions. Mr Rees actions were significant departures from the standards expected of a registered nurse, and are fundamentally incompatible with him remaining on the register. His actions were so serious that to allow him to continue practising would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the NMC as a regulatory body. The panel noted paragraph 47 of the ISG: Page 6 of 8
In all cases of serious sexual misconduct, it will be highly likely that the only proportionate sanction will be a striking-off order. If panels decide to impose a sanction other than a striking-off order, then they will need to be particularly careful in explaining clearly and fully the reasons why they made such a determination, so that it can be understood by those who have not heard all of the evidence in the case.the panel has therefore concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction, sufficient to protect the public and the public interest is a striking-off order and nothing short of this would be sufficient. The panel has therefore concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction, sufficient to protect the public and the public interest is a striking-off order and nothing short of this would be sufficient. This order is necessary to mark the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession, and to send to the public and the profession a clear message about the standards of behaviour required of a registered nurse. Accordingly, the panel directs the Registrar to strike Mr Rees name off the register. Mr Rees may not apply for restoration until a period of five years has elapsed since the striking-off order was made. An application for restoration will not be granted unless a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee is satisfied that Mr Rees meets the requirements for admission to the register and in addition, is a fit and proper person to practise as a nurse or midwife. Decision on interim order The striking-off order will take effect 28 days from Mr Rees being notified of this decision in writing, unless an appeal is made. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the legal assessor. Page 7 of 8
In reaching its decision to impose an interim order the panel had regard to the seriousness of the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order. The panel was satisfied that an interim suspension order is necessary in the public interest; to do otherwise would be inconsistent with its earlier findings. The period of this order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined. If no appeal is made then the interim suspension order will be replaced by the strikingoff order 28 days after Mr Rees is sent the decision of this hearing in writing. That concludes this determination. Page 8 of 8