HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

Transcription

1 HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC FARRAR, Rebecca Louise Registration No: PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JANUARY 2016 Outcome: Erasure with immediate suspension Rebecca Louise FARRAR, a dental nurse, NVQ L3 Dental Nursing & VRQ L3 Dental Nursing City & Guilds 2012, was summoned to appear before the Professional Conduct Committee on 11 January 2016 for an inquiry into the following charge: Charge That, being a registered dental nurse: 1. At all material times you were a United Kingdom registered dental nurse practising at A2 Dental Studio, 3 Effingham Square, Rotherham, South Yorkshire; 2. On around 28 October 2014 you took 20 from Colleague A's bag; 3. In or around September or October 2014, you took 5 from Colleague B's bag; 4. Your conduct at 2 and/or 3 above was dishonest in that: a. You knew that the money belonged to your colleague; and/or b. You took the money from your colleague without appropriate authorisation; and/or c. You intended to take the money for your own personal gain; AND, by reason of the facts stated, your fitness to practise as a dental nurse is impaired by reason of your misconduct. On 11 January 2016 the Chairman made the following statement regarding the finding of facts: Mr Pataky The Committee has taken into account all the evidence presented to it. It has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In accordance with that advice it has considered each head of charge separately. At the outset of the hearing, on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC), you made an application to proceed in Ms Farrar s absence, pursuant to Rule 54 of the GDC (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2006 ( the Rules ). The Committee first considered whether Ms Farrar had been sent notification of this hearing in accordance with Rules 13 and 65. It saw a copy of the Notification of Hearing letter, dated 7 December 2015, which was sent to Ms Farrar s registered address and another known address by Special Delivery and by first class post. An Enquiry Agent had confirmed to the FARRAR, R L Professional Conduct Committee January 2016 Page -1/6-

2 GDC that the other address is where Ms Farrar currently resides. The Committee was satisfied that the letters contained proper notification of this hearing, including its time, date and location, as well as notification that the Committee had the power to proceed with the hearing in Ms Farrar s absence. The letters also included the allegations and they set out the potential outcomes of this hearing and their consequences for the registrant. Royal Mail track and trace receipts confirmed the letters were delivered on 8 December On the basis of all of this information, the Committee was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made in accordance with the Rules to send notification to Ms Farrar and that the requirements of service had been met. The Committee next considered whether to exercise its discretion under Rule 54 to proceed with the hearing in Ms Farrar s absence. It took into account the advice of the Legal Adviser regarding the principles set out in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1, which includes the need to be fair to Ms Farrar. The Committee also had regard to the public interest in the expeditious consideration by the GDC of the allegations in this case. The Committee has noted that the last communication from Ms Farrar to the GDC was on 7 September 2015, where she indicated to the GDC Solicitors that she had no intention of going back to dentistry and did not want to be involved with the case. She stated that she was not represented and would not be appointing a representative. She finally stated that she did not want to attend the hearing in January, but understood that it would go ahead without her. The GDC has made efforts to engage further with Ms Farrar by sending her the hearing bundle on 17 December 2015, and writing to her on 4 January 2016 to ask if she had any objection to any documents in the bundle. Ms Farrar did not respond. The Committee had further noted that Ms Farrar had not sought an adjournment and has not made any efforts to contact the GDC since the notification of the hearing. Any adjournment at this stage would only serve to delay the conclusion of this case. The Committee noted that these matters concern matters of dishonesty. There are witnesses present and are due to give evidence. In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Ms Farrar had voluntarily absented herself from these proceedings and, as such, there would be no merit in an adjournment. The Committee had regard to the public interest in the serious nature of the allegations in this case, and it was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to proceed with the hearing in Ms Farrar s absence. In reaching its decisions on the facts, the Committee considered all the evidence presented in this case. The Committee had regard to the submissions made by you on behalf of the GDC. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. In accordance with that advice, it has considered each charge separately. The Committee drew no adverse inference from the non-attendance of Ms Farrar. The Committee was conscious that the burden of proof rests with the GDC, and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. This means that the facts of a charge will only be proved if the Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the facts occurred as alleged. The Committee reminded itself that Ms Farrar was not required to prove or disprove anything. The evidence put before the Committee included a number of documents, including the witness statements of Colleagues A, B and C. FARRAR, R L Professional Conduct Committee January 2016 Page -2/6-

3 The Committee heard oral evidence from Colleague A and B and witness C called by the GDC to read out their statements and to attend for possible examination. The Committee found the oral evidence of these witnesses to be credible. I will now announce the Committee s findings in relation to each head of charge: 1. Proved. 2. Proved. 3. Proved. 4.a Proved. 4.b Proved. 4.c Proved. The Committee have noted the admission made by Ms Farrar to South Yorkshire Police and to her employers at the practice in s of November The Committee heard oral evidence from Colleague A who confirmed that Ms Farrar had confessed to her employers at the practice of taking 20 from her. Colleague A subsequently received a letter of apology from Ms Farrar as well as the return of 20. The Committee noted the Police report contains her admission, and also that her dated 23 December 2014 admits her guilt. The Committee have noted the admission made by Ms Farrar to South Yorkshire Police and to her employers at the practice in s in November The Committee heard oral evidence from Colleague B who stated the Ms Farrar has confirmed to staff at the practice that she had stolen 5 from her. Colleague B also confirmed that she had received a letter of apology from Ms Farrar as well as the return of 5. The Committee note that the witness statements are consistent with each other. The Committee is satisfied that Ms Farrar knew that the money belonged to Colleague A and Colleague B on the basis of the evidence of those colleagues. The Committee accepted Colleague A s oral evidence that Ms Farrar was previously aware that Colleague A had a 20 note in her possession. Ms Farrar had admitted that she took money from Colleague A and B. The Committee noted Ms Farrar s admissions in her signed restorative justice form namely that the money was taken without permission of Colleague A or Colleague B. The Committee accepts the evidence of colleagues involved that no authorisation was given to Ms Farrar. The Committee is satisfied that Ms Farrar took the money for her own personal gain. Despite requests from the practice employers during two staff meetings in November 2014, Ms Farrar decided to stay quiet. The Committee also accepts Colleagues A s evidence that Ms Farrar indicated to her that the money might have been mislaid, when Ms Farrar knew that was not the case. It wasn t until after repeated requests that Ms Farrar finally admitted her dishonest actions to her employers. There hasn t been any other alternative explanation provided by the registrant. The Committee can t think of any other reason why Ms Farrar would intend to take money other than for her own personal gain. Therefore on FARRAR, R L Professional Conduct Committee January 2016 Page -3/6-

4 We move to Stage Two. the balance of probabilities the Committee finds this charge proved. On 12 January 2016 the Chairman announced the determination as follows: Mr Pataky, The Committee has listened carefully to the submissions made by you on behalf of the General Dental Council (GDC). It has read all the documentary evidence and has accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The facts in this case, which Ms Farrar has largely admitted and the Committee found proved, relate to two serious acts of dishonesty carried out when Ms Farrar was employed by A2 Dental Studio. Ms Farrar, at the practice premises, took 20 and 5 belonging to colleagues A and B. Misconduct The GDC s publication Standards for Dental Professionals aims to protect patients and promote confidence in dental professionals. The Committee has found that Ms Farrar s behaviour was in breach of these Standards. The Standards provide at paragraph 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 You must make sure you do not bring the profession into disrepute. The Standards further provide at 9.1: Ensure your conduct, booth at work and in your personal life justifiers 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. The Committee first considered whether Ms Farrar s dishonest behaviour amounted to misconduct. Misconduct is conduct which falls far short of the acceptable standards. The Committee concluded that Ms Farrar s behaviour directly contravened the standards referred to. Her dishonest conduct occurred on two occasions and her actions violated trust amongst colleagues. Ms Farrar attempted to conceal her actions and the Committee considered that her actions could damage the reputation of the profession. The Committee noted that there has been repeated dishonest behaviour. The Committee considers that such behaviour taken separately and more so collectively would be deplorable to fellow members of the profession and severely undermine public confidence in the profession. In the circumstances, the Committee determined that Ms Farrar s behaviour clearly amounted to misconduct. Impairment You, on behalf of the GDC, submitted that, in relation particularly to the seriousness of the offences, Ms Farrar s fitness to practise was and remains impaired. FARRAR, R L Professional Conduct Committee January 2016 Page -4/6-

5 The Committee next considered whether Ms Farrar s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct. The Committee was of the view that this dishonesty is highly likely to damage public confidence in the profession. The Committee considers that taking money from two colleagues for her own personal gain is a serious matter. The committee was of the view that dishonesty is not easily remediable given that dishonesty demonstrates an attitudinal problem. The Committee was of the view that the dishonesty in this case was not isolated. The Committee noted Ms Farrar s dishonest behaviour in failing to disclose her actions when asked on more than one occasion by her employers, and that she only disclosed her dishonest taking of the money after her practice principal told all staff that he would call in the Police. The Committee has not been furnished with any correspondence or documentation by Ms Farrar which shows insight or remediation. Ms Farrar stated in her only written submissions to the GDC that she had admitted the dishonesty and that she has paid back the full amount owed. The Committee was of the view that this was theft from her colleagues rather than a debt she owed. She stated that she does not intend to work in dentistry again. In the absence of a detailed response from the registrant, it is difficult for the Committee to make a full assessment of her motives. The Committee is satisfied that there still remains a real risk of repetition against which colleagues must be protected. The Committee concluded that her dishonesty did bring the profession into disrepute and breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The committee has borne in mind that it must not only protect patients and colleagues but also take into account of the wider public interest, which includes maintaining confidence in the dental profession and the GDC as its regulator, and upholding proper standards and behaviour. The misconduct identified in this case was, in the view of the Committee, so serious that the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be significantly undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances of this case. Having regard to all of this the Committee has concluded that Ms Farrar s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct. Sanction Having determined that Ms Farrar s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct, it went on to determine what sanction, if any, is appropriate, balancing the public interest with Ms Farrar s own interests. The committee has taken into account the GDC s Guidance for Professional Committees. The committee applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the public interest with Ms Farrar s own interests. The Committee has considered the range of sanctions available to it, starting with the least serious. The Committee considered that to conclude this case by taking no further action or with or a reprimand, would be wholly insufficient, given the gravity of the misconduct found. It further determined that conditions would not be suitable, having regard to the fact that Ms Farrar s impairment relates to dishonesty and cannot be remedied by the imposition of conditions. It further determined that conditions would not address the repeated dishonest conduct, nor adequately protect colleagues. The Committee considered whether it is appropriate to suspend Ms Farrar s registration. FARRAR, R L Professional Conduct Committee January 2016 Page -5/6-

6 The Committee noted the Guidance for the Professional Conduct Committee, which includes categories where careful justification would be needed if a decision not to erase were reached. It has the following to say about dishonesty: Patients, employers, colleagues and others have a right to rely on registrants integrity..dishonesty, particularly when associated with professional practice, is highly damaging to a registrant s fitness to practise and to public confidence in dental professionals. The Committee s judgement is that her dishonest behaviour was unacceptable and there is a significant risk of repetition from which colleagues need to be protected. It has the potential to be damaging to the reputation of the profession and the public s confidence in dental professionals. The committee considered whether Ms Farrar s dishonest conduct is fundamentally incompatible with her remaining on the Register. The Committee considered the mitigating circumstances in this case, including that Ms Farrar s clinical abilities have not in fact been called into question and that she did broadly admit the charges in correspondence with the GDC, although not promptly to her employers. The Committee concluded that in considering the dishonesty of a registrant the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is to order erasure. The Committee invites submissions on whether an immediate order for suspension is necessary. Ms Farrar has 28 days from the notification of today s findings of sanction in which she can appeal against any of the findings and the order for erasure. On behalf of the GDC, you submitted that an immediate suspension should be imposed for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The Committee was of the view that the misconduct in this case is serious, and that a finding of current impairment has been made in relation to Ms Farrar s fitness to practice. The Committee has determined that it is necessary that Ms Farrar s registration should be subject to immediate suspension, and this decision is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. This order is necessary for the reasons set out above in order to cover the appeal period should one be lodged. Unless Ms Farrar exercises her right of appeal, the substantive order for erasure will come into effect and will replace the order for immediate suspension. That concludes this hearing for today. FARRAR, R L Professional Conduct Committee January 2016 Page -6/6-