Psychologist Cleared of Undermining Covid Advice/Laws

A case against a Practitioner Psychologist brought by the Health and Care Professions Council was dismissed by the Conduct and Competence Committee which found that there was no case to answer. There was no prima facie case: therefore, there was no evidence of the statutory ground of misconduct and no evidence that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired.

The Panel acceded to a half-time submission by the defence.

The HCPC had alleged that fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct for engaging in what was described as inappropriate and/or unprofessional conduct via social media in that the psychologist shared content by re-tweeting which contradicted and/or undermined government advice and/or national lockdown laws relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Counsel for the HCPC conceded that no documentary evidence of any advice issued by the government at the material time had been produced. The panel therefore concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of “any government advice … relating to the Covid 19 pandemic” which could be “contradicted and/or undermined” by the Registrant’s Twitter posts as alleged. It therefore did not go on to consider whether there was prima facie evidence that the Twitter posts were “inappropriate and/or unprofessional” with regard to government advice.

The panel considered that the evidence was unsatisfactory in the most part because there was no evidence at all of matters which it considered it would need in order to consider the propriety of the shared content in context.

There was no evidence of government advice; no information about the sources of the original tweets or their respective reliability; there was even no evidence about whether the original tweets were “well-informed”.

Reminding itself that the burden of proving that there was a prima facie case was on the HCPC, the panel found itself in the unsatisfactory position of being asked to consider the allegation in effect in a vacuum. It had received no evidence to enable it to understand the context or to draw proper inferences or interpret the shared content.

At best this was an abject prosecution by the HCPC which regulates 15 separate health professions.  No effort had been made to gather the evidence required to support its case.

Although this registrant was successful because of effective legal representation, the case demonstrates how easily injustice may occur in proceedings brought by the HCPC. So many registrants do not have insurance and face proceedings unrepresented.  Without legal assistance they do not have the expertise to challenge tardy prosecuting or ill thought-out and badly drafted allegations, but still stand to lose their practising rights because they are unable effectively to challenge the proceedings and are stressed and overwhelmed by the process.

Legal expenses insurance is a must for all regulated professionals. The consequences of  facing disciplinary proceedings without legal advice and representation are too great.

The Practitioner Psychologist was represented by Mark Harries KC of Serjeants Inn,  instructed by Andrea James of Keystone Law