Mrs Elaine Moore

Resumption on 20 November 2023 – day 3 of the hearing

1. The hearing resumed on day 3 on 20 November 2023, the hearing having started on 7 March and adjourning on 8 March 2023.

2. The adjournment of the hearing on 8 March 2023, had been at the request of HCPC and the Registrant. The reason for that request was to enable the HCPC to present to the Panel evidence of the Registrant’s up-to-date health situation.

Service
3. The Panel had evidence that a Notice of Hearing letter sent to the Registrant, contained the correct information relating to the date, time and mode of the hearing, and it had been sent more than 28 days in advance of the hearing.

4. The Panel also had before it evidence that the Notice of Hearing letter had been sent by email on 13 July 2023 as well as by post on the 14 July 2023. The Panel noted that the email had been successfully delivered to the Registrant’s email address as notified by her to the HCPC on 15 June 2023. It also had evidence of an electronic signature for receipt of the postal delivery copy of the letter.

5. The Panel, having sought and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice, accepted this evidence of service as fulfilling the HCPTS’s duty to ensure that the Registrant has been put on notice of the resumption of the hearing. In reaching its decision, the Panel noted that within a telephone conversation with Kingsley Napley solicitors on 9 October 2023, the Registrant had confirmed that she was aware of the dates of this hearing, although the Panel appreciated that service was the act of sending and not the act of receiving.

Proceeding in the absence

6. The HCPC made an application for this hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In support of that application the HCPC stated that:

• There is public interest in this hearing going forward without further delay.
• The witnesses are here today and ready to give their evidence and any further delay may further impact on their recollection of events.
• There is evidence within the correspondence bundle of the Registrant’s disengagement from the HCPC process. There is evidence that at least 29 attempts had been made by the HCPC and Kingsley Napley to make contact with the Registrant. That had been by email, telephone, voicemail, and postal means. On only two occasions had contact been successful. The Registrant had not initiated contact during this period.
• The Registrant’s action of disengagement should not be allowed to frustrate the course of the hearing.
• The Registrant has not provided any good reason for her absence.
• It had been in the Registrant’s interests that an adjournment had previously been provided. Given the limited extent of the Registrant’s engagement since, and her failure to provide the relevant information that would allow up-to-date medical evidence to be provided, there was no information to support the position that a further adjournment would result in the Registrant’s attendance.
• From the telephone conversation between Kingsley Napley and the Registrant on 9 October 2023, the Registrant had been recorded as saying that she was unable to take time off work and so it might be deduced that this was a reason for her non-attendance.

7. The Panel took legal advice and referred to the Practice Note issued by the HCPTS relating to Proceeding in absence.

8.There was no evidence, in the Panel’s view, to support an adjournment nor anything to indicate that such an adjournment would result in the Registrant’s attendance at a future date. There was also no evidence of a good reason for non-attendance, although there was within a note of a conversation between the Registrant and a member of Kingsley Napley on the 9 October 2023, a note that the Registrant would not be able to take 3 days off work. This hearing had been set down for four days.

9. The Panel considered that there was public interest in this hearing proceeding without further delay. The absence of evidence of continued engagement and compliance with the HCPC hearing process indicated a declining level of engagement. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily absented herself and this being the case, the application is approved.

Hearing in private
10. The Panel received an application from the HCPC for the entirety of the hearing to be held in private. The reason being that the subject matter and all evidence relating to it are intrinsically intertwined and relate to the core issue of the Registrant’s health.

11. The Panel sought advice from the Legal Assessor. The Panel appreciated that there is a presumption that all hearings will be heard in public. The Panel accepted that the evidence before it all related to the Registrant’s health and that to attempt to segment proceedings into private and public portions would not be practical. The entirety of the information before the Panel relates to the Registrant’s health and this, under Human Rights legislation, is a matter that would be afforded privacy from public scrutiny. The application was therefore approved.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Elaine Moore for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

12. At the conclusion of the hearing on, Tuesday 21 November 2023, following the handing down by the Panel of its determination on current impairment, the HCPC made an application for an Interim Order to cover the appeal period till the substantive order becomes operative.

13. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

14. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mrs Elaine Moore