A

B

C

D

E

F

HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL MEETING

Conduct and Competence Panel Hearing

held within

Thistle Hotel Glasgow, Cambridge Street, Glasgow, G2 3HN

at 10.30am on Friday, 4th February, 2005

Panel Members:

Dr. Graham Beastall, Chair and Council Member. Mrs. Erica Bradley, Speech and Language Therapist.

Mr. John MacKenzie, Lay Partner. Present:

Mr. Michael Guthrie, Hearing Officer.

Mrs. Angela Hughes, Legal Assessor.

APPEARING:

Mr. John Harding, Solicitor, Messrs. Kingsley Napley, Solicitors, for the

A

B

C

D

E

F

Health Professions Council. Mr. Rory McPherson, Solicitor, Messrs. Thompsons, Solicitors, Glasgow, for Miss Lindsay Boyes.

FRIDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY, 2005

THE CHAIR: Good morning, this

is the Health Professions Council Conduct and

Competence Panel Hearing in the case of Lindsay

Boyes. I suggest that we start by introducing

ourselves and expressing our particular roles

in the proceedings.

So my name is Dr. Graham

Beastall, I am a Member of the Health

Professions Council and it is my role to Chair

the Panel today.

MRS. BRADLEY: My name is Erica

Bradley, I am a Speech and Language Therapist,

I am a Manager and a Clinician Therapist.

MR. MacKENZIE: I am John

MacKenzie, and I am the Lay Partner.

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Thank you

3

A

B

C

D

E

F

Chair, I am Angela Hughes, and I am the Legal

Assessor. My role is to advise the Panel on

law and procedure and to ensure that the

proceedings are conducted fairly and properly.

I am independent of the Panel and any advice I

give whilst the Panel is sitting would be

placed on the record. I may also be asked to

advise the Panel on questions of law after the

Panel has retired and if I do so I will confirm

that advice when the Panel resumes in public.

Once the Panel has reached its decision I may

also be asked to help to draft that decision to

ensure that it complies with any relevant law

and to make sure reasons are given. If I am

asked to do so it will only be after the Panel

has reached its decision as I am independent of

the Panel and will not take any part in the

decision-making process.

MR. GUTHRIE: I am Michael

Guthrie, and I am the Hearing Officer.

MR. HARDING: John Harding,

Solicitor for the Council.

4

A

B

C

D

E

F

MR. McPHERSON: I am Rory

McPherson, Solicitor for Miss Boyes.

THE CHAIR: Let’s proceed then.

Mr. Guthrie, could you maybe read the

allegation in this case?

MR.GUTHRIE: The allegation in

the case of Miss Lindsay Boyes is that “your

fitness to practise as a registered health

professional is impaired by reason of your

conviction for assault at Dumfries Sheriff

Indictment Court”.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. Mr.

McPherson, clearly Miss Boyes isn’t here, how

would you feel she would wish to respond to the

allegation?

MR. McPHERSON: She admits the

allegation made against her.

THE CHAIR: She does admit the

allegation.

MR. McPHERSON: She does admit

the allegation.

MR. HARDING: Could I just say

5

A

B

C

D

E

F

does that include “impairment” as well?

MR. McPHERSON: No, just to

qualify these, I understand that there is a

two-stage test, the admission of the allegation

and the question as to whether the allegation

impairs her fitness to practise. In relation

to the question of whether the allegation

impairs her fitness to practise I am not in a

position to admit that, I have no instructions

to admit that, I would observe that the

incident took place outwith work albeit that it

was a very serious matter.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, that

helps to set the scene.

MR. HARDING: I anticipate that

you have had an opportunity to read the bundle

that I submitted on behalf of the Council which

included amongst other things two statements.

THE CHAIR: Indeed.

MR. HARDING: Sir, Lindsay Boyes

is a registered health professional and Speech

and Language Therapist and she has been so

6

A

B

C

D

E

F

registered since the 1st of October, 2001.

In November, 2003, Lindsay Boyes

was a Grade 2 Speech and Language Therapist

based at Coylton Health Clinic as an employee

of the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board as it is

now called.

Lindsay Boyes started employment

with that Trust in 2000 as a Speech and

Language Therapy Assistant prior to the

conclusion of her degree course. She was

subsequently taken on in 2001 as a registered

Speech and Language Therapist. The latest

allegation relates to a conviction for assault

and she was convicted at Dumfries Sheriff Court

and following a plea of guilty she was

sentenced to a year’s probation and community

service on the 8th of June, 2004 and you will

see the certificate of conviction at page 9 of

your bundle.

The brief facts surrounding this

conviction are as follows. You will see from

Sgt. Johnstone’s statement that on the 16th of

7

A

B

C

D

E

F

November about 11.30 in the evening he was on

duty and he received a call in which he was

advised that an allegation of assault had been

made against Lindsay Boyes. Due to the time of

night it was decided that he wouldn’t approach

Lindsay Boyes then, he would do it the

following morning and he duly did. He went to

her home address where she was detained for

interview and investigation.

The facts of the allegation are

briefly as follows – It was alleged that

Lindsay Boyes went to the home address of the

victim. She had taken a knife from the kitchen

at that address and went to his bedroom and an

altercation ensued with the result that the

victim received a cut to his face and right

hand, and the nature of the injuries are set

out on Sgt. Johnstone’s statement.

The victim and Lindsay Boyes

were well known to each other. When Lindsay

Boyes was interviewed under caution on the 17th

of November she explained that she had been

8

A

B

C

D

E

F

sexually assaulted by a third party in the

toilets of the Masonic Hall in Moniaive, I hope

I have pronounced that right, where the victim

was the keyholder and bartender. She believed

that he was aware of the assault and could have

intervened to stop it. The incident apparently

happened at 6am in the morning on the 17th of

November and it was apparent during the course

of the interview that all parties had been

drinking heavily throughout the course of that

night and into the early hours of the next day.

It was also apparent during the course of the

interview that Lindsay Boyes had suffered a

bereavement and that her grandfather had died a

few days before. It was also said that during

the course of her interview she was very

remorseful and the officer formed a view that

alcohol very much played a heavy part in her

behaviour which was duly regarded, which he

regarded as out of character.

Towards the end of November,

2003, Lindsay Boyes advised her employers of

9

A

B

C

D

E

F

the situation who decided to monitor the

position until she decided whether she was

going to plead guilty or not guilty.

In May, 2004, Lindsay again

approached her employers, told them that she

had been advised to plead guilty, and at that

point she was suspended.

Sir, you will have seen from the

correspondence today that she was subsequently

dismissed in December.

Sir, you have in your bundle two

statements, those witnesses are here and if you

want to ask them any questions we can call them

forward. I don’t have anything to ask them

because they have provided me with a statement

and I don’t think Mr. McPherson does either,

but they are here and can give evidence and

answer any queries you have got if you wish.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, we did

discuss this before we came in and our view is

that we have no wish to question Christopher

Johnstone, the Police Sergeant, his evidence is

10

A

B

C

D

E

F

fine, no questions. We would however like to

have a brief word with Jane Kerr.

MR. HARDING: Can I just make

one or two points on the issue of impairment in

my opening...

THE CHAIR: Yes.

MR. HARDING: As that has been

specifically identified as an issue.

THE CHAIR: Yes.

MR. HARDING: Sir, you will be

familiar with the “Standards of Conduct,

Performance and Ethics”, and I hope you have

got a copy of that and I would particularly

refer you to Rule 3 and Rule 16 and if I can

just read those to you if I may. Rule 3 – “You

must keep high standards of personal conduct,

as well as professional conduct. You must not

do anything that may affect someone’s treatment

by, or confidence in, you. We can take action

against you if you are convicted of a criminal

offence or have accepted a police caution. But

we will always consider each case individually

11

A

B

C

D

E

F

and we will take decisions in the light of the

circumstances of the case. However, as

guidance, we will seriously consider rejecting

an application for registration, or striking

you off if you are already registered, if you

are convicted of a criminal offence that

involves one of the following types of

behaviour:” and it lists them and one of the

categories it refers to is “Violence”. So you

are aware of that and if I can remind you of

Rule 16. “You must make sure that your

behaviour does not damage your profession’s

reputation. You must not get involved in any

behaviour or activity which is likely to damage

your profession’s reputation or undermine

public confidence in your profession.”

Sir, you will have picked up

from the comments made more recently in the

letter from the Trust dismissing Lindsay Boyes

that there were concerns because of the client

group which she was dealing with, and certainly

your Speech and Language Therapists on the

12

A

B

C

D

E

F

Committee will also no doubt advise you as to

the vulnerable nature of the clients who need

speech and language therapy input and take that

into account.

Sir, that’s all I have got to

say in opening the matter, but perhaps I could

call Mrs. Kerr forward now and perhaps once she

has taken her oath and you have introduced

yourselves perhaps I could just formally ask

her to give her full name and so on and then

hand her over to you.

MRS. JANE KERR sworn –

BY THE CHAIR: Thank you very

much for coming Mrs. Kerr. I think it would be

helpful if we just introduced ourselves sitting

round the table and then I’ll pass over to Mr.

Harding to just confirm your role. My name is

Graham Beastall and I am a Member of the Health

Professions Council and it is my role to Chair

the Panel’s proceedings today.

MRS. BRADLEY: I am Erica

13

A

B

C

D

E

F

Bradley, and I am a Speech and Language Therapy

Manager and Clinician from Sheffield.

MR. MacKENZIE: I am John

MacKenzie and I’m the Lay Partner.

MRS. HUGHES: I am Angela Hughes

and I am the Legal Assessor for today’s

proceedings.

MR. GUTHRIE: I am Michael

Guthrie and I am the Hearing Officer today.

MR. HARDING: You know me, John

Harding.

MR. McPHERSON: I am Rory

McPherson and I represent Miss Boyes.

EXAMINED BY MR. HARDING: Can I

just ask you to give the Committee your full

name please? – My name is Jane Kerr.

And your occupation? – I am

Speech and Language Therapy Manager for the NHS

Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Division, I

think that’s what we are today.

And can I just be clear, you

were in November, 2003, Lindsay Boyes’ manager?

14

A

B

C

D

E

F

– I was, indeed.

The Committee have your

statement which you should have a copy of in

front of you there as well and please feel free

to refer to that if you need to, it is at page

4. The Committee have asked you to come

forward because they have got one or two

questions for you.

BY THE CHAIR: Thank you very

much for coming Mrs. Kerr. Our questions

really are not so much about the statement

which you have given which is very clear, but

it’s more about the role that Lindsay Boyes

played as Speech and Language Therapist within

the employing Authority, the Division, so if I

can pass over to Erica Bradley to ask

questions.

EXAMINED BY MS. BRADLEY: I

understand that you knew Lindsay for a period

of about 4 years? – That’s correct.

When she worked with you as an

assistant and then when she qualified? – Yes.

15

A

B

C

D

E

F

And during that time were there

any concerns raised during supervision and

appraisals or anything like that about her

competency? – She had joined us as an assistant

because she had had a fail at practical

examination and we have for many years employed

assistants, we are well known in Scotland as an

area where we use assistants in the Service,

and Lindsay’s home area is Dumfries and

Galloway which is our neighbouring area, and I

know the educational establishment Strathclyde

course very well and the people who teach

there, and so we often help people out, and she

came for this period of employment as an

assistant and then went to do her final

practical re-sit placement with our acute

organisation and so she was sort of in the area

for quite some time, so I knew about her

academic background and her difficulty in

entering the profession originally. She then

joined us as a newly qualified therapist and we

employ many of them and it’s the way our

16

A

B

C

D

E

F

service brings members of the profession on, so

we have quite a good system and we published

some years ago around the process alongside

Elspeth McCartney and there are checks and

balances in that system and, you know, our

feeling really was that Lindsay had potential

to be quite a good speech and language

therapist, her problems were in other areas,

and attendance was one of them.

You mentioned that she actually

failed the practical it wasn’t the theory? –

Yes.

So did she work with you as an

assistant for how long? – It was really just a

few months.

A few months? – But it gave

quite a bit of supported practise and she then

went to do the re-sit practical.

And she passed obviously? – Yes,

she did.

And when she was working for you

she worked I know from very young pre-5

17

A

B

C

D

E

F

children right through the spectrum to the

elderly, didn’t she? – We have quite an unusual

service although we don’t now have a totally

area-wide service because there is a separate

at the moment acute service headed up by

someone else but within our community service

we do have a cradle to the grave service, we

provide all the paediatric service including

acute paediatrics, and we have fairly elderly

patients, elderly mental health patients, and

those referred to all ages by their general

practitioners. So it’s a wide scope. The

majority however are children.

Yes? – You will understand that

with your knowledge of the profession.

Yes, thank you.

And the locations, would the

majority would be in a clinic situation or a

nursery? – The majority are not clinic based.

No? – Because we are in quite a

mixed urban rural with quite a heavy rural

background clinic attendance is not good and we

18

A

B

C

D

E

F

support and have done historically and many are

young people in their educational

establishments, but of course combined with

that since 1992 we have had contracts with our

Local Education Authority and provide services

for children with in the widest sense special

educational needs not restricted to those with

statements or records, and the model there is

collaborative practice, and that is best

conducted in the school setting.

So not a huge number of home

visits? – Not a huge number no, but end of day

follow-up, finding, you know, obviously if

parents have difficulty coming in, school

holiday times.

Yes? – There are more.

Yes. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. MacKenzie.

EXAMINED BY MR. MacKENZIE: Yes,

you did mention that there were some problems

in relation to attendance and other areas I

think you said, are you able to just elaborate

19

A

B

C

D

E

F

a bit on that? – If it’s felt to be

appropriate, you know, it was not part of the

original and certainly not part of our process

at all, our process locally was clearly around

only this one incident and I must make that...

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: If I can

maybe just interrupt, I think really the Panel

should probably restrict themselves to

questions relevant to the allegation before

them as opposed to other matters that

haven’t...

THE CHAIR: Yes.

MRS. BRADLEY: Sorry, would it

be fair to ask would you sort of recommend

Lindsay to be, or would you employ her in this

capacity again, should she be able to work for

you again? – I am sure that Lindsay will grow

up, I think she was a young person.

Thank you.

BY THE CHAIR: Thank you, could

I just ask one sort of final question and it

reveals my complete ignorance of speech and

20

A

B

C

D

E

F

language therapy, so I apologise. You have

indicated that the role that Lindsay had

involved a very wide range of clinical

practice, is it possible, not necessarily in

your employing authority, but are speech and

language therapists employed elsewhere in more

specialist type of roles where they can work

with one group of clients rather than a wide

spectrum? – I am sure that is the case

particularly in hospital settings as opposed to

community settings. Our, the aim of the

organisation tells us all that it’s community

and that’s the focus.

Okay, thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Harding,

anything arising from that.

MR. HARDING: No thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. McPherson have

you any questions.

MR. McPHERSON: Nothing arising

from anything Mrs. Kerr has said this morning.

THE CHAIR: Okay. Well, I think

21

A

B

C

D

E

F

we would be happy for Mrs. Kerr to stand down.

You feel that you may wish to ask her something

later.

MR. McPHERSON: No, I’ve got, in

relation to Mrs. Kerr’s statement, there seems

to be one comment in relation to her statement

but it is simply for clarification.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. McPHERSON:

At paragraph 6 of your statement? – Yes.

“On 27th November, 2003 I

received a telephone call from Lindsay Boyes

who was on sick leave at” that “time”. Am I to

understand that Miss Boyes was in fact on sick

leave when the incident that you’ll be aware of

took place? – She went on to sick leave at the

beginning of the week after the incident if my

memory serves me correctly. I think that her

mother phoned to indicate that she was unwell.

THE CHAIR: No other questions

Mr. McPherson.

MR. McPHERSON: No other

questions.

22

A

B

C

D

E

F

THE CHAIR: So Mrs. Kerr can be

released then.

BY THE CHAIR: Thank you very

much indeed for coming in, we do appreciate it.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL

MR. HARDING: That with the

witness statements and the evidence we have

just heard from Mrs. Kerr, that’s the Council’s

case. The stage you are at at the moment if I

have got this right is you have got to decide

whether the allegation is well founded and the

live issue then is whether the conviction is an

impairment to her fitness to practise.

I am not going to repeat what I

said in opening having just said it a moment

ago. Now, the Council’s case is that it is

impairment for the reasons I have set out and

no doubt Mr. McPherson will want to address you

at this point.

23

A

B

C

D

E

F

THE CHAIR: Mr. McPherson.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF MISS BOYES

MR. McPHERSON: First of all

simply by reference to the Rules. Miss Boyes

is not contesting that it is incompetent for

the Committee to consider this matter, it is

clearly provided within the Rules that HPC can

take action against an individual if they are

convicted of a criminal offence and it doesn’t

provide within the Rules that the HPC are

required in fact to take action, it is provided

that the Committee will always consider each

case individually and will take decisions in

the light of the circumstances of the case and

will, but again it is not disputed, it is open

to the HPC to consider, seriously consider a

very serious disposal such as striking off

where there has been a single incident such as

violence, but in the context of this case it

would be submitted that there are individual

24

A

B

C

D

E

F

circumstances that should be taken into account

but if I may just expand a little bit further.

THE CHAIR: Yes, please do.

MR. McPHERSON: The Committee

has I believe before it a letter from the

General Practitioner which was, I’m not sure of

the date of the letter from the General

Practitioner. The Committee may appreciate

that I’m working, yes, the Committee will have

before it a letter from the General

Practitioner and perhaps before I go into any

specific details I understand the Committee

also have a letter from Miss Boyes that was

sent to myself that I passed on to the

Committee.

THE CHAIR: Yes, indeed, we have

read that.

MR. McPHERSON: The Committee

may appreciate that I am working somewhat

without specific guidance or instructions but

on a deductive basis perhaps, as I understand

the chronology of matters Miss Boyes was

25

A

B

C

D

E

F

diagnosed as suffering from depression in

around May, 2003 according to her General

Practitioner and her grandfather died

tragically a few days before the assault took

place. There is certainly an allegation that

she has made of a very serious nature against a

third party a day or a couple of days before

the assault takes place. The assault takes

place it appears late at night outwith work

when she has been taken out with friends

essentially to cheer her up following upon the

loss of her grandfather. Following upon that

she advises her employers of what has happened.

She faces a criminal charge and she elects to

plead guilty and doesn’t elect to seek to

contest the allegation on 8th of June. She is

given probation for a year, and I think reading

from the GP it would appear in March 2004 she

suffers another very serious matter, perhaps

more serious even that the loss of her

grandfather, a miscarriage in March, 2004. The

GP’s letter has been dated 16th June, 2004.

26

A

B

C

D

E

F

The GP indicates as I understand

it that she is continuing to receive treatment

for depression at that stage.

She is assessed by the Social

Work Department using their clinical formal

risk assessment tool and I don’t offer to, I

wouldn’t offer to suggest that I have any great

insight as to risk assessment tools other than

this is clearly the device used by social

workers to assess the risk to the community of

individuals who may re-offend, and their

clinical assessment is that she is at low risk

of further offending, that is in July, 2004.

All this time it would appear under treatment

for a level of depression which originated in

May, 2003, she faces a Disciplinary Hearing

with her employers and again because she

doesn’t wish to suggest that she doesn’t

recognise the seriousness of the allegations

against her although this was an incident

outwith work and although there would be a

technical legal argument to say it would not be

27

A

B

C

D

E

F

open to an employer to dismiss somebody for a

matter outwith work notwithstanding the

vulnerable nature of the group, she does not

take that, she does not seek to appeal that,

she does not seek to appeal it internally or

via an Employment Tribunal.

Given the terms of her letter to

myself I had considered seeking an adjournment

on the basis that she is telling me that she is

depressed. Now, she does not ask for an

adjournment, in fact she makes it very clear

that she is not asking for an adjournment, and

so I have got no locus to ask for an

adjournment. Equally I have a concern that

there is a medical matter, namely the

depression, which has come through from the GP,

a clear diagnosis since May, 2003.

We have a further matter in

relation to whether the incident could be said

to impact on her fitness to practise. The

incident does take place outwith work. It does

appear to have taken place in what can only be

28

A

B

C

D

E

F

seen as exceptional circumstances, the loss of

her grandfather and following upon, I hesitate

to say it, following upon a very serious matter

the following year there is absolutely no

suggestion from the Social Work that there has

been any further transgressions of any nature

at all. In fact she points out she is

continuing with her probation and unpaid

community work, and I have to say that on the

information I have, it doesn’t strike me that

the allegations of themselves de facto impair

her fitness to practise in the context that

there does appear to be a medical matter which

may well have been behind it, and I’m not sure

that I am in a position to say any more on the

basis of the very limited instructions I have.

THE CHAIR: So just to be clear

we have this letter from Thompsons which

“confirms that the Health Professions Council

will agree to adjourn the Hearing”, you are now

not suggesting...

MR. McPHERSON: I’m not

29

A

B

C

D

E

F

suggesting, I have no instructions from Miss

Boyes to seek an adjournment, but equally I am

conscious that Miss Boyes is advising me in

that letter that she is suffering from a

clinical condition, namely depression, which

may impair her ability to give full

instructions, so I am in some difficulty.

Equally she is quite candid in

that letter and it doesn’t appear the letter is

in any way in my view incoherent, and it

appears that she is as it were accepting the

possible outcome of this Committee, but there

is I would suggest a fairly clear theme of a

medical condition running through this which I

appreciate hasn’t been brought before the

Committee previously but equally shall we say

in my defence as it were as can be seen I have

very limited instructions from Miss Boyes.

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Chair,

perhaps if I could come in at this point. The

Health Professions Order Schedule 1, Article

6c, which refers to the makeup of Panels of

30

A

B

C

D

E

F

Practice Committees provides that where the

health of the person is relevant to the case

there should be at least one registered medical

practitioner and clearly HPC have not been made

aware that health was an issue. Perhaps you

would like to refer to Mr. Harding on that

point.

THE CHAIR: Well, my view on

that is the Panel has to decide whether health

is in fact an issue relating to the specific

incidents. I think what has happened since

that incident may well mean that the health of

Miss Boyes has changed. I think we would

probably first of all need to decide whether it

would be a factor at the outset.

MR. HARDING: Sir, the point I

would make here that you have some documents

here to help you.

THE CHAIR: Yes.

MR. HARDING: Firstly, you’ve

got the statement of Mr. Johnstone and no point

is it suggested to him during the course of his

31

A

B

C

D

E

F

investigation that health was a factor in the

offence. We then got sent a letter from John

Henderson & Sons, Solicitors, who were asked no

doubt on Mrs. Boyes’ instructions to set out

the mitigation – no reference there in relation

to the offence, and I emphasise that, that

depression played, you know, depression or lack

of medication, whatever, was a factor in the

offence. The factors in the offence as

identified in the interview and the letter from

the solicitors is alcohol and the suggestion of

indecent assault.

THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you. I

think that is one of the things that we will...

MR. HARDING: The other thing

that I would also add is that the suggestion in

the documents you have that Miss Boyes was

suffering from depression during the course of

2003. During that period she was of course

working, there is no suggestion from the

witness today we have heard from that they were

concerned about her ability to perform by

32

A

B

C

D

E

F

virtue of any health issues.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. Mr.

McPherson, have you any other comments you wish

to make?

MR. McPHERSON: No I have

nothing further to add at this stage.

THE CHAIR: Okay, thank you. Do

you have any questions for Mr. McPherson, you

don’t.

Well the normal procedure at one

of these Panels is that the Panel considers

whether the allegation is well founded, and

then returns to consider any mitigation before

retiring again to consider what might be

appropriate sanctions. It does seem to me that

the defence that you have given us over the

last few minutes in effect amounts to

mitigation in this particular case and I wonder

whether there is any merit in us retiring to

come back to listen to the same mitigation

again. So perhaps is there anything that you

would wish to add at this stage?

33

A

B

C

D

E

F

MR. McPHERSON: I am grateful

for, Chairman, your indication as to your

thoughts. Other than indicating that again

drawing your, drawing the Panel’s, the

Committee’s attention to the terms of the

letter that was issued by Miss Boyes to myself

to be presented to the Panel, Miss Boyes is

clearly not denying the seriousness of the

allegations, and although one perhaps is

tempted to take, draw a conclusion from

somebody failing to turn up at a Hearing I

think that would be an unfair conclusion given

the very clear terms in which she has expressed

herself.

As far as any further matters I

would simply again draw your attention to the

Social Work conclusions that there is no

evidence of any continuing risk, she is

regarded as a low risk, so the only evidence

that the Committee have is that she is a low

risk which I would suggest indicates that she

is essentially the same as any other person,

34

A

B

C

D

E

F

and it would be somewhat dangerous to suggest

that she should be treated as somebody who is

at risk of committing a similar offence in the

future given that there is no evidence of that,

and in fact the evidence is quite the contrary,

and I have already drawn your attention to the

issue of the medical condition.

Beyond that I have really

nothing further to say at this stage other than

of course Miss Boyes appreciates that it is

open to the Committee to withdraw her

registration. She appreciates that the

Committee may feel a period of suspension is

more appropriate. I had considered whether a

limited period of suspension given the medical

information might be appropriate but I am not

sure as to the, quite candidly, as to the

powers of the Committee as to whether it can be

fixed for a period for review but I will leave

that to the Committee.

MR. HARDING: Would it help if I

just remind you of what your disposals are.

35

A

B

C

D

E

F

THE CHAIR: It would indeed,

thank you.

MR. HARDING: So first of all

just to emphasise you first must decide whether

it is well founded.

THE CHAIR: Indeed.

MR. HARDING: And then you move

on to the disposal Sir.

THE CHAIR: Indeed.

MR. HARDING: So if you find it

well founded you have a number of options open

to you. First of all you have to decide

whether it is appropriate to refer the matter

for mediation or to decide to take no further

action. That’s your first stage. So if you

don’t feel that sufficiently protects the

public you then move up the ladder, and if I

can explain each rung to you.

The next disposal available to

you on the ladder is a caution – that’s where

the Registrar is directed to annotate the

register with a caution for a specified period

36

A

B

C

D

E

F

which shall be not less than 1 year and not

more than 5 years.

Sir, if you don’t feel that is

sufficient to protect the public you then move

up another rung to a Conditions of Practice

Order which the person must comply with for a

specified period which shall not exceed 3 years

– that’s a Conditions of Practice Order.

Sir, further up the tariff is

the Suspension Order where you can suspend

registration for a period not exceeding 1 year.

Just to touch on that that Suspension Order

will be reviewed before it expires, you are

required to do that, the Conduct Committees are

required to review Suspension Orders and to

extend or not as the case may be.

Finally Sir, the ultimate is a

Striking-off Order and you will be aware that

if a Striking-off Order is made a Registrant

can’t apply to come back on to the register for

a minimum of 5 years.

So those are your powers unless

37

A

B

C

D

E

F

I can be of any further assistance.

THE CHAIR: Just one point of

clarification if you don’t mind. In terms of a

Caution Order, that would automatically expire

would it at the end without the need for a

further Hearing.

MR. HARDING: Yes, there’s no

review on the caution.

THE CHAIR: It’s rather like

points on a driving licence in the sense that

it self-expires.

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Any questions?

MR. MacKENZIE: No I don’t.

MRS. BRADLEY: No.

THE CHAIR: Okay, well I think

on that basis we’ll retire and consider the

matter in the two specific areas, first of all

whether the allegations are well founded and if

so what might be an appropriate sanction.

(After an adjournment)

38

A

B

C

D

E

F

THE CHAIR: Right, thank you, we

took advice from Mrs. Hughes so perhaps you

would start by explaining what we wished to

seek her advice on.

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Thank you,

Chair, I confirm that I assisted the Panel with

the drafting of their decision only, I didn’t

take any part in the decision-making.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. Well we

then have a decision from the Panel and I’ll

read it to you – The Panel has considered all

the evidence presented and has decided that the

allegation that Lindsay Boyes fitness to

practise as a Registered Speech and Language

Therapist is impaired by reason of her

conviction for assault is well founded.

Conviction for assault is a serious offence

that indicates that Miss Boyes has not

maintained a high standard of personal conduct

as required by paragraph 3 of the HPC Standards

of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

39

A

B

C

D

E

F

Furthermore, the Panel believes

that the conviction has damaged the reputation

of the Speech and Language Therapy profession

and so contravenes paragraph 16 of the same

Standards.

The Panel has reviewed the

sanctions open to it as a result of finding the

allegation well founded. It has concluded that

for such a serious offence it would be

inappropriate to take no further action or to

issue a Caution Order.

The Panel does not believe that

in the current circumstances a Conditions of

Practice Order would provide sufficient

protection to the public, nor would it be

feasible to issue an appropriate Conditions of

Practice Order at this point in time.

The Panel considered the option

of a Striking-off Order but believe that Miss

Boyes has demonstrated a sufficient degree of

insight, remorse, and willingness to resolve

matters. The Panel also took note of the

40

A

B

C

D

E

F

exceptional mitigating circumstances and is of

the view that there is a low risk of

recurrence, therefore the Panel decided against

a Striking-off Order.

It is the decision of the Panel

that a Suspension Order be imposed on Miss

Boyes for a period of 9 months.

The Panel notes that a

Suspension Order should not prevent Miss Boyes

from seeking employment as an Assistant Speech

and Language Therapist working under

supervision.

Right of Appeal – Miss Boyes may

appeal against the Committee’s decision and the

Order that it has made. Articles 29(9), (10)

and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001

provide that Miss Boyes has 28 days from the

date of this Notice to make such an Appeal to

the Court of Session.

The order set out above will not

take effect until that appeal period has

expired or, if Miss Boyes appeals during that

41

A

B

C

D

E

F

period, until the appeal is withdrawn or

disposed of.

That concludes the business

today.

MR. HARDING: There is one

matter that arises out of that. I would apply

for an interim Suspension Order to cover the

period 28 days or disposal of the appeal

whichever is the longer.

THE CHAIR: Would you like to

explain for the benefit of my colleagues on the

Panel the reasoning for that.

MR. HARDING: Well the reason is

Sir, that it is almost a standing instruction

to Solicitors to the Council, you will have

picked up that if Mrs. Boyes was to appeal her

suspension next week then that suspension

wouldn’t be effective, and therefore the public

wouldn’t be protected as you have decided they

should be by a Suspension Order until that

appeal is disposed of, maybe in 6 months time.

So for that reason I apply for an interim

42

A

B

C

D

E

F

Suspension Order for a period of 28 days or

disposal of the appeal whichever is the longer.

That’s under Article 31.

THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Perhaps you

would like to liaise with Mr. McPherson on that

point. I can advise the Panel that if they are

satisfied that it is necessary to protect

members of the public or otherwise in the

public interest or in the interests of the

person concerned, they could make an interim

order and it would expire, if there was no

appeal the interim order would expire at the

end of the 28-day appeal period. If there was

an appeal the interim order would remain in

force until that appeal had been withdrawn or

disposed of.

THE CHAIR: Are you clear, Mr.

McPherson.

MR. McPHERSON: I am quite

clear. I have to say I would not seek to

oppose that.

THE CHAIR: Well, I have to say

43

A

B

C

D

E

F

the Panel had anticipated such a request and we

are happy to approve such a request.

I think Ladies and Gentlemen

that concludes the Panel Hearing. Thank you

for your attendance today.

_______________