Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Podiatrist denies sexually assaulting patient as he cut her toenails

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by NewsBot, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
  3. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Interesting. The jury found him not guilty in minutes yet the HCPC, immediately they heard of the allegations, imposed stringent limitations to his practise.

    Guilty until proved innocent !
     
  4. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    I think its unjust and unfair that a woman can make an unsubstantiated allegation with no proof except her word and a man is immediately arrested and has to go thru a huge ordeal in court and the poublic eye via the media, who write headlines like "man denies sexual assault on woman" with the sub text 'we all know he's guilty tho don't we' whereas at the same time the woman maintains her anonymity and faces no prosecution for her lies that put the man thru this ordeal and potentially ruin his life and rob him of his freedom and liberty. The balance is all wrong.
    You cant just go to the police and accuse some one of robbery or assault without any evidence to back up the allegation (nothing broken, no injuries, no one else saw anything, cant show anything missing etc) and expect the police to immediately arrest the person and convict him soley on your word, it wouldnt happen with any other offence.

    Dave:mad:
     
  5. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Agree with John and Dave. Surely, now the man has been found 'not guilty' the name of the accuser should be put in the public domain to protect future practitioners - GPs, physios etc. as well as pods?

    The accusation was clearly nonsensical “He told me to lie down again, picked up my leg and put it up over his shoulder to cut the skin with a knife” she told the eight male and four female jurors.. Unless, of course, Mr Kalami is a contortionist who is able to work behind his own back. Still, it just goes to illustrate the potential danger that males put themselves into when treating females alone.

    The HCPC have, once again, behaved shamefully. If Mr Kalami reads this thread, perhaps he will be kind enough to let us know if he has received a suitably grovelling apology from that body, and a retraction on their web site.

    Bill Liggins
     
  6. jgbu

    jgbu Member

    I think people seem to have forgotton or do not understand the role of the HCPC. Its primary role is to protect the public.

    In this case the podiatrist was cautioned and charged with two counts of serious sexual assault against what can be described as a vulnerable adult. As a registered HCW the police will automatically notify HCPC that this charge has been issued and the details of it, if the registrant has not already done so – the Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics actually state the registrant should inform HCPC.
    Once that notification is lodged with HCPC their complaints procedures automatically starts. Where there are cases or allegations of serious assault, or sexual assault or any form of sexual charge it is likely that prior to a full investigative panel hearing a panel will be set up to apply for an Interim Order, to protect the public.

    From previous history of cases involving HCW’s e.g. Beverely Allit, Shipman and the North Staffs investigations, the public protection is paramount within health care regulators and even now since Saville , the public expect regulatory bodies and other public bodies to take seriously allegations of sexual assault.

    HCPC convened I believe a panel to apply for an interim order, which I understand actually took a lesser sanction whilst investigating the matter and letting the allegation go to Court. HCPC settles on the civil procedures standard of proof – that of on the balance of probabilities whilst a Court has a higher standards – that of beyond reasonable doubt.

    The podiatrist had an interim order, which is reviewed regularly, which imposed conditions of practice, which arguably could have in fact been set at the higher level of suspension. This could be argued as being in the favour of the practitioner although most of us would not necessarily look at it that way, but it is the least sanction imposed which would allow the practitioner to continue to work, whilst safeguarding vulnerable clients/public.

    Meanwhile HCPC will investigate the matter and will have access to all the materials the Court relied upon in taking the matter to Court and will be mindful of the decision of the Court although not being bound by it. So although the podiatrist has been found not guilty on both charges HCPC will hold its own investigation and hearing and may come to a different decision because it is only looking at the balance of probabilities.

    I think instead of castigating HCPC, forum members should be considering some other factors which to me are more worrying about this case:

    1. Why did the patient make the allegations in the first place – was this through ignorance of what a podiatrist does and their scope of practice, in which case as a profession there is a lot of work to do to educate the general public
    2. Why did the police continue with the case and why did the Crown Prosecution Service think they had sufficient evidence to take this to Court with a view to a conviction?
    a. HCPC works on the basis of ....is there a realistic prospect of HCPC proving its case when it goes to a full Fitness to Practice hearing – if Yes then it goes forward, if no then it is dropped at that stage.
    3. Did CPS and Police have the full information about what the role and scope of practice is of a podiatrist and does the profession agree with what that role and scope is? Is it clearly defined somewhere – tried looking for that sort of info on a professional body website?
    4. Does the police and CPS know what we as a profession can do and do do? Do they know what our training is and how we practice – do they understand the differences between NHS and private practice?

    5. The bigger issue to me is what Mr Liggins purports to and that is the risk that a single handed practitioner (of either gender!) takes when undertaking domiciliary practice, as well as undertaking biomechanical and even simple muscle testing in an environment where there is no chaperone.

    6. Which leads onto the next issue – who can act as a chaperone- if the HCW provides one is there perceived bias for the benefit of the practitioner? If the patient/client provides one – is their perceived bias against the practitioner? If so who can act as an ‘independent’ chaperone!

    This was an issue that HCPC tried to implement which intrigued me as to who was supposed to provide the chaperone? If the podiatrist had been an NHS employee the NHS could have removed them from undertaking domiciliary visits whilst they were still able to practice, or they could have been settled into a clinic with a second staff member able to ‘oversee’ their practice, or they could have been suspended on full pay pending the Court case.

    So again an issue between private and NHS

    The other issue is the anonymity of the person making the allegation whilst the accused is made known : again that is not an HCPC issue but one of our Criminal Justice System

    So please instead of slating the HCPC for doing what it was set up to do, please consider the wider facts and issues and lets look at who is actually responsible for this – the police and CPS who brought the case, the anonymous patient making the allegations and the Criminal Justice System which protects the person making the allegations
     
  7. Hello Gordon

    Good post -well argued. That is indeed the role of the HCPC and they are discharging their duties in accordance to their own guidelines. The elephant in the room, however, is what would happen if the outcome was different and say the podiatrist had been found guilty, served a sentence - then decided to start up practice again as - quite legally -a Foot Health Specialist. Where then is the public "protected"?

    Best wishes
    Mark
     
  8. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    So the registrant is found not guilty by the system that charged him but the HPCP embarks on its own investigation. But that's ok as that's what they were set up to do ! It's what they are paid for so they have an interest in pursuing the registrant !!

    It's a most unsatisfactory aspect, one of many, that shows that the HCPC is unfit for purpose.

    If the law can't prove the charge, that should be the end of it. The HCPC will, however, ignore the court findings and go merrily on their way. The excuse being that they use a different burden of proof, great.
    It seems that the attitude is, if the police and CPS go to trial, the accused is probably guilty. However, it is not the police or CPSs place to decide guilt but the court system. If a crime is alleged then the burden of proof should be that used by the court. The balance of probabilities level of proof is more appropriate to other situations, a registrant should not be subjected to both.
     
  9. jgbu

    jgbu Member

    I see you choose to ignore the other issues such as the police and CPS and the public ignorance of what we do and put all the 'blame' again on the HCPC- they work within the regulations as far as I can see that were given to them - so why not blame the politicians who made up the eval process they work within?

    Why as a profession did we not get better policy? I am not aware of say Physio's complaining as much about sports therapists taking on their role - do we not have any faith in the fact the public can tell the difference between a good and a poor practitioner? I am not sure that Foot Health Practitioners are all bad - surely if we wish to argue against them we should try and influence their training so I a not quite sure there is any 'elephant' in the room - only what we perceive?
     
  10. jgbu

    jgbu Member

    John

    I think we only know what has been said in the media and not all the 'facts' of the case and whether there may be other issues that HCPC may consider within the allegations - I am not attempting to pre decide any case but so far as far as I can see what is being talked about is what has been reported and not necessarily the facts presented in the case? I would prefer to allow a Court and also HCPC to decide the 'facts' based on what evidence is produced by both parties rather than media decide and determine the outcome! It may well be that a HCPC panel will determine that there is no case to answer, at the investigative stage, although that I think is unlikely and therefore there will not be a full FtP case, but the interim order is still subject to a review from what I understand of the process. I am not sure why a registrant should not be subject to both criteria as it is different systems that are trying the person for different reasons? Technically speaking if the registrant is following their own Standards they will have reported themselves to HCPC not the police. I agree it is the Court system to determine innocence or guilty but the CPS and police must determine the evidence to submit and the CPS determine whether they have a realistic prospect of proving the case or they should not go to Court, which is the same with HCPC!
     
  11. i did no such thing - the problem as you correctly point out is the legislation the HCPC functions under. The buck rests with the politicians - that is where we must concentrate efforts.

    telling the difference between a good and poor clinician is one thing. Exposing them to a dangerous or risky one - identified by its own regulatory standards is another, don't you think?
     
  12. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    jbgu

    I think we only know what has been said in the media and not all the 'facts' of the case and whether there may be other issues that HCPC may consider within the allegations - I am not attempting to pre decide any case but so far as far as I can see what is being talked about is what has been reported and not necessarily the facts presented in the case?

    My points are not based on a specific case but on any allegation of a sexual assault.

    I am not sure why a registrant should not be subject to both criteria as it is different systems that are trying the person for different reasons ?

    Should the HCPC be ‘trying’ anyone, when the complaint is being dealt with by the courts ?
    What are these different reasons, that would not apply to any registrant in daily practice ?

    I agree it is the Court system to determine innocence or guilty but the CPS and police must determine the evidence to submit and the CPS determine whether they have a realistic prospect of proving the case or they should not go to Court, which is the same with HCPC !

    You prove my point as you are concluding that there ‘must’ be evidence that shows guilt. Unfortunately that is not how the Police & CPS work. An allegation of sexual assault is difficult to prove as evidence is mainly based on the veracity of the complainant. Not wanting to be seen treating the case lightly charges are usually brought thereby shifting responsibility.
     
  13. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    I note that Mark Russell has the advantage of the rest of the respondents, since he refers to you as 'Gordon' when you fail to post over your own name. You have indeed argued your case well. However, in your uncritical support of the HCPC (or the 'system') you have reinforced the issue of double jeopardy which is inimical to English law and to all right thinking people.

    Bill Liggins
     
  14. I understand where you're coming from but don't agree with you, Bill. A FtP hearing is a different process than a criminal trial - and with different standards and aims. The HCPC are charged with protecting of the public - from their own registrants. If a registrant is subject to a criminal investigation and charged with sexual offences, tried and convicted, the HCPC will have to go through a FtP hearing to consider whether or not the criminal conviction would be likely to impair the registrant's ability to practice safely. In the majority of sexual offence cases, that would undoubtedly be the outcome.

    There is another aspect to this. The bar is higher in criminal cases, which may not always be the best test for conduct matters in health professions - as the recent Howard Price case illustrated. Price had been investigated by the Serious Sexual Offences Unit of GMP after they received over a hundred home made videos with over 38 females and Price engaged in a variety of sexual activity. The police investigation did not proceed to court as the police were only able to identify a handful of women - who did not want to press charges or make a complaint. Had it gone to court and Price was acquitted - under your suggestion the HCPC would be unable to conduct its own FtP hearing and he would remain a registrant. Even allowing for the fact that the regulatory process is fatally flawed anyway - it cannot and should not be the case that individuals conducting themselves in this manner should be allowed to practice under the guise of a registered health professional.

    There are parallels in other professions - such as politics. Take for example the recent case at Preston Crown Court with the deputy speaker - Nigel Evans, who was found "not guilty" of rape and a number of other sexual offences. The CPS have been decried at pursuing the case - but it was quite proper that the allegations were tested in a court - and Evans was found not guilty of the specific charges. What was not on trial was his behaviour or his decision to engage in a number of sexual acts, perhaps at the extreme end of the range which no doubt some of the "right thinking people" you refer to would consider perverse. If he had been a podiatrist instead of a politician, then I suspect Evans would be facing a FtP hearing and would very likely be struck-off - even after his acquittal at court.
     
  15. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    The HCPC did not wait for a court decision, they jumped in !

    If there are issues regarding a registrants behaviour not related to an existing criminal charge, all that is required is a complaint being made to the HCPC !

    Attacking a potentially innocent registrant from two directions at the same time is not acceptable.
     
  16. Their role is to (supposedly) protect the public. If a registrant is investigated by the police and charged with an offence it can take months before the case comes to court. If the registrant is on remand and offends again in a healthcare setting, the regulator would be failing in its duty (again) to protect the public. You will recall the Shipman case where the GMC failed to impose practice restrictions even after being alerted by the police and Shipman went on to murder another two patients..
     
  17. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    So in this scenario, the HCPC automatically support all false, malicious and mischievous allegations against a totally innocent person. I do not believe that that was intent of the Act and I further believe that interpretation of that Act is the key. A very questionable allegation of sexual impropriety is entirely different from a seriously based accusation of multiple homicide.

    Unfortunately, as mentioned in post #6 we do not know anything other than the media report. However, the dismissal of the case in minutes can be helpful in judging how seriously the court took the allegation. Why, one might ask, did the HCPC panel not judge it at the same level when it had access to all the papers laid before the court, when 'trying' the registrant prior to the court case?

    Bill Liggins
     
  18. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    if a registrant is on remand and offends again in a healthcare setting, the regulator would be failing in its duty to the public
    So would the prison authorities, when on remand you're locked up !

    So you offend, resign from the HCPC and carry on working. The public protection is either, the law if a crime is alleged, or litigation if any duty of care failing is alleged. The HCPC is largely irrelevant !
     
  19. I don't think they would have access to all the papers for the court. The defence papers would certainly be privileged and in any case, if they had all the papers prior to a criminal trial, you would be asking a panel to prejudge a jury verdict which would be nonsensical. The CPS will have issued a notice to the HCPC who would then convene a panel hearing to consider the imposition of practice restrictions in accordance with the nature of the notice. I do accept there are questions to be asked in relation to false and vexatious complaints having been subjected to two such incidents personally.

    In this case the HCPC will be bound by the CPS and court's decision to keep the complainant's identity secret - but this is a rare example. I was given a FOI document recently from the HCPC which detailed the number of complaints that were dropped or found in the registrant's favour at hearing and it is the overwhelming majority. There seems to be an increasing trend for employers to use the HCPC's FtP process in preference to their own internal dispute and disciplinary procedures - which really is a gross abuse of the system and wholly unfair to the registrant.
     
  20. Sorry, that should have been 'bail'. And yes, with the exception of those registrants who require registration as a condition of employment, it is irrelevant.
     
  21. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Please see post #6 by jgbu.

    'Meanwhile HCPC will investigate the matter and will have access to all the materials the Court relied upon in taking the matter to Court and will be mindful of the decision of the Court although not being bound by it. So although the podiatrist has been found not guilty on both charges HCPC will hold its own investigation and hearing and may come to a different decision because it is only looking at the balance of probabilities.'

    Or are you stating that jgbu (whose comments you have supported), is guilty of misrepresentation?

    All the best

    Bill Liggins
     
  22. Don't be silly, Billy - he has far too much integrity for that - espeshly even for a Glaswegian! I did say I didnt think the panel would have all the evidence bundles before the court - but of course I could be wrong. No doubt my wee pal will take great delight in correcting me if I'm wrong!
    ;)
     
  23. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Is Igbo in the pay of the HCPC, I think we should know ?
     
  24. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Sorry, should read: is jgbu in the pay ...............
     
  25. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Come, come Marky, per my post above, I don't suggest that you did so state but you know who he is, the rest of us do not. That being the case, we can only take him at his word:

    "Meanwhile HCPC will investigate the matter and will have access to all the materials the Court relied upon"

    unless, of course, you are being deliberately satirical implying that as a Glaswegian he was drunk when making the posting!:

    "he has far too much integrity for that - espeshly even for a Glaswegian!"


    I wouldn't dream of suggesting such a thing.

    Cheers

    Bill
     
  26. blinda

    blinda MVP

  27. God forbid, me neither. Who would think such a thing?? :drinks
     
  28. jgbu

    jgbu Member

    Hi Bill and Mark et al

    When I posted I was talking about the original HCPC interim order where they would not have all the papers e.g. they would not have the defence papers and I would hope they may not have had access to the whole defence case as the interim order would be made more or less immediately after the allegation was made known to HCPC. Normally when an allegation is made, the HCPC collates the information from the complainant and will then present the case to a Investigative panel and this usually includes materials from the registrant if they have taken part and responded to the allegation. If they do not then the case is heard and a decision is made whether there is a realistic prospect of HCPC proving its case. However, where there are serious allegations, as would appear to be in this case, an interim order is applied for which would restrict the practice or prevent a further offence as Mark has quite clearly shown. I would imagine that at that time of the interim order a full investigative panel had not taken place, and the registrant would I am sure have had a defence. But and this is the big but - it would appear to me that what is apparent from what has been reported, that the complainant and the police force and CPS did not know at that time whether what the claim of sexual assault amounted to could have been within the role and scope of podiatry practice - not the sexual assault but the muscle testing and biomechanics examination which was above the foot and in fact appears to have been around the groin.

    When the review of the interim order occurs, which should be soon, HCPC will have more appears and I assume the Court papers and any other papers the defence and the prosecution relied upon in presenting both sides of the case. Thus at the next hearing HCPC will have a lot more evidence but as Mark quite rightly points out if they had failed to act immediately, and the registrant had continued on with similar offences they would have failed in their duty of care.

    Mark knows who I am as we have corresponded for a long time and Yes I am a Registrant partner but as anyone who knows me will tell you I make up my own mind and although HCPC pays for me to sit on FtP panels and others areas I am an independent person and Bill you should know that also as we have met at approval events at SMAE - I have been known to be very critical of HCPC both at Investigative stages as well as when hearings do not go what I consider to be the right way!

    However as far as I am concerned there are faults with HCPC and the system within which they work, but they also work very much with legal assistance as do all cases all the way through, so although a Registrant Partner may sit alongside two other panel members there is an independent legal assessor to assist the panel. Why the jury dismissed the case may well be because it had information about what podiatry is, what it constitutes etc and were then able to make a fair evidence based judgment.

    As someone who also undertakes medico-legal work (and I cannot say anything more about this case!)I cannot get involved with this particular case if it came to HCPC as a Partner. As I said in an earlier post coments are made by others on this forum on limited and partial evidence which is not a good thing to then start a debate and it is clear that Mark has a better understanding of HCPC processes than others .

    For your information my name is Gordon Burrow but I usually use what is there as previously I was in education and did not wish to be seen as taking a particular line which could be construed as being either HCPC, GCU or SCP as I am involved with all organisations.
     
  29. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    As soon as this guy was arrested, the HCPC will have been notified via the notifyable occupations scheme.

    He has conditions imposed on him and is publically named and shamed, thus losing potential customers and being branded a pervert.

    He is then cleared by a court. Interestingly, how many other women patients have complained about being touched up by this man. It has been in his local news, but it does mention that other women have come forward!

    With regards to complaints about being touched up, when it gets to the news, other "victims" normally come forward. I don't here it in this case.
     
  30. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Thanks for identifying yourself Gordon. Indeed we have met, and as I originally posted, you made a coherent and rational argument and I stated that we have only the media reports on which to comment. I also appreciate your rather delicate position as a paid panel member of the HCPC. However, I repeat that for me the double jeopardy situation which you highlight "So although the podiatrist has been found not guilty on both charges HCPC will hold its own investigation and hearing and may come to a different decision because it is only looking at the balance of probabilities." is abhorrent to me, especially where the panel 'trying' the case is apparently composed of one registrant only, and two others who will be ignorant, to a greater or lesser degree, of what podiatry practice consists, and a legal adviser who will be likewise ignorant. If the panel is less ignorant than the police or the CPS, as in this case, then they are the more to blame for imposing restrictions on a clearly innocent practitioner. As in all cases, it is we, the practitioners who are paying the salaries of these highly paid civil servants and their appointed legal advisers.

    Kind regards

    Bill Liggins
     
  31. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    jgbu

    It`s always better to declare an interest when posting, subsequent exposure will always result in the belief that your views have bias. However, the whole tone of your posts suggested, as I said, that you were in the pay of the HCPC. Claiming that you always express an independent view is doubtful, you must know that it`s impossible once you`ve taken the 'shilling'.

    [Iif they had failed to act immediately, and the registrant had continued on with similar offences they would have failed in their duty of care.][/I]

    Nonsense, once the registrant was charged and awaiting trial the chance of a further offence is most unlikely. The fact of being on a criminal charge would be a much greater deterrent than being investigated by the HCPC.

    Natural justice is for the court verdict to be the end of the matter. If guilty, then the HCPC should do it`s worst, if not guilty the HCPC should do nothing unless a separate complaint is laid.

    Regards
     
Loading...

Share This Page