t.

 

 

IN THE CARE TRIBUNAL


 

Ref: NISCC 6/2014


 

 

 

BETWEEN:

NS

 

Appellant

 

-and-

 

 

 


NORTHERN IRELAND SOCIAL CARE COUNCIL


 

Respondent:


 

 

 

 

Tribunal Panel:

 

Stephen Quinn Q.C. (Chairman); Mary O'Boyle; Sally O'Kane (Lay Members)

 

 

 


Date: Venue: Decision:


6th April 2016

The Tribunals Hearing Centre, Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast

Unanimous decision of the Tribunal Panel:Appeal dismissed.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     The Appellant was a Care Assistant who had applied to be registered on the Northern  Ireland  Social  Care Council (NISCC)  Register  as  a  Social Care Worker  Adult Residential  Care Worker.     Section  3(1)  of the  Health & Personal Social Services Act (NI) 2001("the Act") requires  the Respondent to maintain a Register of Social Workers and Social Care Workers.  Section 9 of the Act provides for the preparation  by the Council of Codes of Practice laying down standards of code and practice expected of Social Care Workers and  a  requirement  for the  Code to  be taken  into account by the  Council making  a decision  and  also  in any  proceedings  on  appeal  against  such decision.  Section 4(1) of the Act states  that an application for registration must be made to the NISCC in accordance with the relevant Rules which, in this  case, are  the  NISCC  (Registration)  Rules 2014  ("the  Rules").     Rule

4(9)(b)   of  the  2014   Rules states   that  the  Council shall  not  grant  an application for registration  unless "it is satisfied as to the Applicant's good character, conduct, competence and health (including  physical and mental fitness to perform the work of persons registered in the part of the Register in which registration is sought)".

 

2.     Rule 15(1)(a)   of  the  Rules requires  the  Council to  refer  to  the  NISCC Registration Committee ("the Registration Committee") any application for registration  which it is not minded  to grant  and the  Council referred  the

 

 

I


Appellant's application to the Registration Committee in accordance with the

Rules.

 

3.      The Tribunal Panel has been provided with a Trial Bundle and Addendum Trial Bundle (reference: NISCC6/2014) containing all relevant  documents. The Notice of Referral to the Registration Committee was sent  to the Appellant's registered address by special delivery on the 25th June 2014 and was acknowledged as received on the 26th june 2014. The Notice was signed as having been received on the 26th June 2014 and therefore the Registration Committee determined  that  the Notice of Referral had been served  in accordance with the Rules.   The Report to the Registration Committee is at Section 3.2 of the Bundle. This report sets out the facts of the referral and exhibits the evidence to be considered by the Registration Committee on the

24th July 2014.    Briefly stated,  the Report records  that the Appellant was employed as a Care Assistant at Milesian Manor Nursing Home, Magherafelt

and  that  on  the  8th July 2013  an  allegation  was  made  by another  Care Assistant (Erin Convery) that  NS had been rough with a resident (OM) and had hit the resident  on the hand.  As a result of an internal  investigation at Milesian Manor, NS was dismissed from her employment on the 9th July 2013 for gross misconduct   The Report referred  to a letter  from the Appellant's solicitor, Kevin McDonnell (MacElhatton & Co., Solicitors, Belfast) of 7th May

2014 and the letter from the Police Service of Northern Ireland ( PSNI) of the

14th May 2014  confirming  that  NS was convicted  of a "common  assault arising from her employment at Milesian Manor on a resident   The case was heard  at  Magherafelt Magistrate's Court on the  29th March 2014  ..... NS

appealed the decision to convict her to Deny County Court   The Appeal Hearing took place on the 28th Apri/2014 and she was convicted.   The Court imposed a three month custodial sentence suspended for one year."

 

4.                                                                    The main issue considered and investigated by the Registration Committee was the Appellant's conviction on a charge of common assault on a resident at the Nursing Home where she was employed. The Certificate of Conviction (in the addendum Trial Bundle, page 3) shows that on a plea of "not guilty" NS was convicted at the Magistrate's Court on the 26th March 2014 and on appeal  to the County Court it was ordered  that the conviction be affirmed but that the Order be varied in that the sentence of imprisonment  for three months would now be suspended for one year.  Having considered all of the issues the Registration Committee refused to register  the Appellant   The Appellant appealed under Section 15 of the Health & Personal Social Services Act (NI) 2001("the 2001Act") and in accordance with Regulation 4(6) of the Care Tribunal  Regulations (NI) 2005 ("the 2005  Regulations") against  the Registration Committee's refusal of registration  in the relevant  part of the Northern  Ireland Social Care Register.      Section 15(3)  states  that; "On an appeal against the decision, the Care Tribunal may confirm the decision or direct that it shall not have effect':                                                     Section 15(4)  provides power  to vary conditions and make directions regarding such conditions.

 

5.     In coming to its decision, the  Registration Committee considered  a file of papers  that  we  have  considered  at  Section  3.2  of  the  Bundle and  also produced a Notice of Decision dated the 30th July 2014 (Section 3.3 of the Bundle).    The legal advice given to the Committee when considering the papers and arriving at their conclusion is set out in the Notice of Decision:


"The legal adviser reminded the Committee that the statutory test to satisfy registration in the  particular circumstances of this  case, namely that  the Applicant  was  of  good  character  and  conduct  was  not  defined  by  the applicable statutory  framework.    Rather, it  was for the Committee in the exercise of its judgment, based on the  available documentary  evidence, to determine whether the test was met or not  The Committee was also reminded of the need to consider the public interest (which included the need to protect the public and vulnerable service users) when applying the statutory test."

 

6.       The  Appellant  was  not  legally  represented at  any  of the  Care Tribunal Directions Hearings or at this Appeal Hearing but did have the assistance of an interpreter at all hearings  before this Tribunal.   The Respondent  was represented by Mr Mark Scott, Solicitor, of the Directorate of Legal Services. The appropriate test in relation to whether or not this Tribunal should allow the   Appellant's   registration    is  the  same   test   applied   by  the   NISCC Registration Committee (see Rule 4(9)(b) of the 2014 Rules).

 

7.     The Trial  Bundle and  Addendum  Trial  Bundle contain  all  the  relevant documents  relating  to  the incident  that  occurred  on  the  8th July 2013  at Milesian Manor  Nursing  Home involving NS and OM (the resident).   They also include, inter alia, the Appellant's application  for registration  and all documents  relevant  to the  Registration  Committee and  its findings. The Bundles also include relevant letters written by the Appellant regarding her case and the issues between the parties, the response from this Tribunal and Preliminary   Directions  arising   out  of  Preliminary   Hearings  regarding relevant  documentation,  evidence  and  witnesses  that  should  be  made available for this Hearing.  The Appellant has been served  with all of this material  and  confirmed  that  she  had  received  the  Trial  Bundle and  the Addendum Bundle before  the  Hearing commenced.                      Included within  this bundle  are  Police statements from  Erin  Convery (EC), a co-worker  and witness  to  the  incident,  Martha  O'Kane (MOK), the  Nurse  Manager  of Milesian Manor Nursing Home and Hazel Thompson, who is the Advocate for the  injured  party,  OM, in  relation  to  the assault          There  is also a typed "Summary of Audio Recorded Interview" recording a Police interview with NS that  occurred  on  the  2nd August  2013  at  13.25  hours  conducted  by interviewing Police Officers, Constable Brett and Constable McEldrew of the PSNI. We note that  there  was no legal representative, nor an interpreter present  at  this  Police interview,  but  we acknowledge that  the Summary records that NS was cautioned under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE).

 

8.    The  Tribunal  note  that   in  the  document,  "Report  to  the  Registration Committee" (Section 3.2 of the Bundle) that the Committee reflect upon the conviction for assault and at paragraph 8.1state;

 

"Rule 4(9)(b) of the Registration Rules state that the Council shall not grant  an  application for registration  unless "it is satisfied as to  the Applicant's good character, conduct, competence and health" the Council considers that  by  virtue  of her conviction for the  assault of a  frail, vulnerable, elderly service user, the Applicant has not demonstrated that


she fulfils these criteria and therefore submits that  the Applicant should not be included in the Northern Ireland Social Care Register."

 

We acknowledge and note the Appellant's letter of the 16th April 2015 to the Care Tribunal  headed "To clarify the matters at issue between the parties" wherein, inter alia, she makes the following points:

 

(i)     That  she  never  accepted  her  guilt or  pleaded  guilty.   She never smacked, hit or slapped resident OM.

 

(ii)    That   she   was  interviewed  by  PSNI  without   lawyer   or  an interpreter and was not informed  that there were criminal charges to be made against  her or that she  may be imprisoned or lose her right to work as a carer.

 

(iii)   That  the Magistrate  and  the County Court judge ignored  the facts that  the  resident, OM was aggressive  and during  the  incident  the Appellant  was injured  by OM (refer  to the  General  Practitioner's report from Dr McAreevy dated the 11th March 2014) who grabbed and would not release her hand.

 

(iv)   That Erin Convery (EC) was an untruthful  witness and caught lying by her solicitor, Kevin McDonnell, at the Magistrate's Court in that Erin Convery did not see a slap administered to the resident

 

(v)    That she is of good character, conduct, competence and health and the allegations were  only made against  her after she criticised  the Home  Manager  (at   Milesian  Manor)  about   poor   and   criminal working conditions putting residents and staff at risk

 

On our analysis of the papers, the issues raised at the Directions Hearings by the Appellant and  the points  highlighted  in the Appellant's correspondence the  above   points   appear  to  be  the  main  issues   of  importance  to  the Appellant

 

9.        At the request of the parties, in Preliminary  Directions Hearings, a number of Witness Summons  were  issued.   At the  request  of the  Appellant a Witness Summons  was issued  to secure  the attendance of Mr Kevin McDonnell, the Solicitor who represented her at Magherafelt Magistrate's Court and who instructed Counsel to represent the Appellant in her appeal  to Londonderry County Court

 

10.  Mr Kevin McDonnell was  called  as a witness  and  the  Chairman,  with  the consent of all parties present at  the  hearing.  took  Mr McDonnell through some preliminary points of evidence, mindful that at the Directions Hearings the Appellant  had  made it clear  that  Mr McDonnell should  be called as he would prove that  EC, who allegedly witnessed the assault, was an unreliable witness.  Mr McDonnell confirmed that he could recollect the case and stated that he had access to prosecution papers  and the PSNI statements together with documents from Milesian Manor including EC's handwritten statement He agreed that  there  was an issue raised about whether EC actually saw any contact  between   NS and  OM or, alternatively, heard  the  contact without


actually having a view of it  He had a very clear recall that he explained in detail to NS that the District Judge at Magherafelt Magistrate's Court summed up that, in her opinion, NS was reckless in her behaviour in performing her duties in undressing the resident (OM) and that it was from the Appellant's own evidence and her Police interview  that she was convicted.  The Panel were impressed  by Mr McDonnell's evidence and  competence, he did not have notes but confirmed that  he had a good recall of case and confirmed that  he did not attend  the appeal  hearing but appointed  Counsel to attend. He also confirmed that  NS did not have an interpreter at the Magistrate's Court but that he had no difficulty in taking instructions  from the Appellant when she  attended  at  his Belfast office and  during  the hearing  when  he defended her at the Magistrate's Court.

 

11. The Appellant questioned  Mr McDonnell through her interpreter though it was apparent to the Panel that she had a good understanding of English and did not need the majority of the answers  translated.    Her questions  dealt mostly with what  EC said she actually saw of the assault    Mr McDonnell could  not  precisely  recall  what  evidence  EC had  given  on  oath  at  the Magistrate's Court about her view of the alleged assault, but agreed that this was an important issue in the case.  In reply to direct cross-examination he stated  that he could not precisely recall EC's answers.  The Appellant then produced  two  copy  statements from  EC (the  first  to  her  employer  in handwritten  form dated the 8th July 2013 and the second to the Police dated

14th July 2013).   Those copy statements contained some handwritten notes

and Mr McDonnell confirmed that those notes were the notes that he made at   the   time  of  the   Magistrate's   Court  hearing.     There   was  a  short adjournment while the two statements were copied and distributed to all the parties.

 

12.  The Appellant, once again, put it to Mr McDonnell that EC admitted she did not see the assault   Mr McDonnell answered  that  he could not recall the precise answer  but again agreed that it was an important issue in the Trial. His recall was that the Court never found that EC was telling lies about this point but he did recall that an issue was raised about whether  she saw or heard the slap and agreed that there was considerable debate as to whether EC saw the slap as opposed  to hearing it  The Appellant put to him that there were differences in the two statements from EC, namely the statement she gave to the Police dated the 14th July 2013 and the statement she made during  the investigation  carried  out by Milesian Manor dated  the 8th July

2013  (Section 3.2 of the Bundle).  He agreed  that there were discrepancies between   the  two  statements  from  EC but  firmly  stated   that   EC  was questioned   about  this  and  the  issue  was  put  before  the  Court.     His

handwritten  notes address what he considered to be the main points in the defence: that EC didn't see the slap but heard a noise that she interpreted as a slap.

 

13.  Mr Scott cross-examined Mr McDonnell. Mr McDonnell confirmed:

 

(i)       That  the  District  Court (Magistrate's  Court) found  that  NS had taken  no  precautions  when  undressing  the  patient     She  was assessed as being reckless, she saw the risk but continued.


(ii)      The Court convicted mainly on the evidence  provided  by NS in her Police interview.  The District Judge took account  of the admission of contact between NS and the resident, OM.

 

(iii)     In her evidence  NS confirmed  that she  had made contact  with the patient

 

(iv)     That  the  handwritten notes  on  the  documents produced by  NS today   are   his  notes   and   that   they   outline   the   discrepancies between the statements. He confirmed  that those issues were put to EC and were opened  to the Court

 

(v)       That there  were  differences in the evidence as to what EC actually saw.   He had underlined in red ink the word  "hear"  in the Police statement referring to the  fact  that  EC stated  "I could  hear  the smack from where  I was standing beside  the bed".   He confirmed that he put those points to EC when he cross-examined.

 

14.  In concluding  his evidence and on further questions posed  by the Panel, Mr McDonnell told  the Tribunal  that  he took time  to explain  to the  Appellant, after  conviction  at  the Magistrate's Court, that  in his opinion  District  judge Kelly convicted  her  on  the  contents of her  Police  interview wherein  she admitted that  she  slapped  the  resident on the  hand although  stated that  it was  not  deliberate.   He added   that  to  the  best  of  his  recollection,  the Magistrate also took into account the Appellans reckless behaviour relating to how she was performing the undressing duties with the resident

 

15.  Mr Scott then called Erin Convery as a witness.  She confirmed  that she was a Care Worker  at  Milesian  Manor and  that  she  witnessed the  incident  that occurred on the 8th July 2013 at Milesian Manor, that she  made statements about  the  incident  and  appeared as a witness at  Magherafelt  Magistrate's Court and the Appeal at Londonderry County Court.  We will not rehearse all of the evidence but will break it down into the main points  raised  by NS throughout  her   defence   of  the   assault   allegation,   her   application  for registration and the appeal process:

 

(a) EC was asked  to draw  a plan  of the  room  to indicate  where  she  was standing and  to  demonstrate to  the  Tribunal   her  line  of sight     She described   the   bedroom   and  her   plan  assisted  in  understanding the layout  She confirmed  she could see what was happening when  NS was removing OM's clothes.

 

(b) She confirmed  that  OM was agitated  and was shouting,  that  she was at the  bed, heard  raised  voices and  saw  NS taking  off OM's cardigan  and jumper.

 

(c)She heard  a noise like a slap.  She then  confirmed  that she saw  NS from the side, that she lifted her hand in the air and slapped OM on the  right hand.   Under further questioning she confirmed  that she  might not have seen  it clearly  but definitely  heard  the sound  of a slap.   She confirmed that she was standing at the bed, that she saw  it out of the corner of her eye and demonstrated to the Tribunal what occurred.


(d) She went on to say that she was shocked, that she had never see anything like this before and, when questioned, said that she did not say anything to NS and confirmed that  the resident  was totally silent  after the slap occurred.

 

(e) EC finished her shift at 8.30pm and went to see the Manager to report the incident     She went  home that  night and  wrote  out  her statement at home.

 

(f) She gave evidence about attending  the investigation  process at Milesian Manor and was then asked about her involvement in the Criminal Prosecution.   She told the Tribunal that  she  didn't admit  to lying and added  that  the  Judge  didn't  ask  questions  about  her  honesty.    She admitted to the Tribunal that it was difficult to see the slap because of the angle that she was viewing from but she saw it out of the corner of her eye and definitely heard a slapping noise.

 

16. EC   was   cross-examined   by  the   Appellant   The  cross-examination concentrated on whether  EC observed  the alleged assault  or alternatively heard a noise like a slap.  EC said she saw the slap and heard it She was also asked  to  describe  the  working  practices  when  faced  with  an aggressive patient and said that she was trained to give space, to reassure  the patient, tell them what was happening and get them  ready for bed.   Upon further questioning, she said that  the Appellant was being rough with the  patient and that she didn't know what to do.     She was challenged as to why she didn't help or go for help. She answered that the Appellant was handling the patient in a rough manner and she didn't want to get involved.

 

17. EC was questioned  by the Chairman and  Panel Members.  The important parts of this section of her evidence can be summarised as follows:

 

(i)         She got induction training and there was also training in:

 

    Manual handling- 1hours;

    Fire training- 2 hours;

    Privacy and dignity - 1hours;

    She added that she also got first aid and dementia handling training.

 

(ii)      She confirmed  that  she  got  no training  in  relation  to  handling aggressive patients  or dealing with aggression  or anger.    There was no training for "aggression management''.

 

(iii)      She told the Tribunal  that she never saw any sign of aggression from the Appellant and had never witnessed  her handling patients in a rough manner before this incident

 

18. Roisin Robinson (RR) was called to give evidence.  She confirmed that she was a Care Assistant employed at Milesian Manor for ten years commencing her  employment  approximately  2007.      She  had  worked  on  numerous


occasions with NS, confirmed that she was a hard worker and that there had been no previous complaints about her work.   She told the Tribunal that the patient, OM, could be difficult  She was known to be verbally abusive and violent   She had reports  from staff that they had been attacked  by OM and confirmed, on occasions, when she walked past OM, she had been given a light slap by the resident  It was known that OM was a difficult resident and that she was troublesome at bedtime.  She added that staff should never be alone with OM and if in difficulty should sound the buzzer. There was a Care Plan for OM but RR agreed the carers were not informed in any great detail about this Care Plan. She told the Tribunal that there was training in how to deal  with "vulnerable  adults"  and  that  in  her  experience  the  staff were trained  and  had experience of dealing with difficult patients.   After direct questioning by the Panel, she confirmed that she did have "vulnerable adult" training and when questioned  by the Appellant, Ms Robinson confirmed that she had been a victim of OM's violence in the past    Mr Scott asked some questions  and  the  witness  confirmed  that  there  were  approximately  34 residents in the home, 50% of whom suffered some effects of dementia.  She told Mr Scott that the staff were definitely not permitted  to react or "raise a hand" in response to how a resident behaved.

 

19. Given RR's evidence regarding the  behaviour  pattern  of OM and with  the consent of the parties, the Panel decided to recall EC on issues of whether or not she knew OM to be a difficult and aggressive resident EC told the Panel that she didn't personally know that she was aggressive but had been told by other people that OM had been aggressive towards them and was known for such aggressive and difficult behaviour.     When asked  why she didn't give that  evidence when  first  questioned, she  could not  provide  a convincing answer.

 

20. The Chairman advised  NS of her  right to give evidence  to this Tribunal, explaining the importance  of such evidence but advising that Mr Scott, representing the Respondent, had a right of cross-examination  and that the Tribunal  Panel  may  have  some  questions   to  direct  to  her.    This  was explained carefully to the Appellant who was asked if she fully understood what was being put to her, she agreed that she fully understood  but elected not to give evidence to the Tribunal.

 

21. Given that the Appellant was not represented and required the services of an interpreter, this Tribunal  decided  to offer the  parties  the  opportunity  to make written submissions to the Tribunal on the understanding that no new evidence was to be included in those submissions.    Both parties delivered submissions  within the time allowed.  We have read  the submissions  and carefully noted  the  contents.   This Tribunal  takes  into  account all of the above submissions by both parties and gives appropriate weight to them  in arriving at a decision in this appeal.

 

22. We take account of Mr McDonnell's evidence, the written submissions from both parties and the correspondence, statements, reports  and papers in the Bundle.  We  take   account   of  the   fact   that   she   did   not   have   legal representation before the Tribunal.  We accept that NS did make an effort to get legal representation and note that there was no lawyer or interpreter at the Police interview.


23. The Tribunal  confirms  that  it  has  read  and  considered  the  documents recording the investigation  of the incident carried  out  by Milesian Manor Nursing Home.    We have read  the note of the interview  of 9th July 2013 when  NS was interviewed  by her  manager, Martha O'Kane and  the note records; '1NS) then said she did not slap her but admitted  to skitting her." At the investigation carried out by Dr Glancy in the presence of Breige O'Boyle at 2pm on the 1st August 2013 it is recorded, "{NS) explained that the resident had grabbed and  pinched her hand and she was in severe  pain and maybe  I caught her hand and gave her a light smack- but this happened by accident". The Tribunal take into account the difficult circumstances faced by NS but note that NS did not deny, when put to her by Dr Glancy, that she was trained in "vulnerable adult abuse" but stated that she was"not trained in what to do when assaulted and she did not deliberately do it."

 

24.  The  Tribunal  has  been  provided  with  references  from  the  Appellant's previous and subsequent employers and those appear at pages 1and 2 of the addendum  Trial Bundle.    It is clear that  the Appellant has a good work history and is highly regarded by those employers.      Raisin Robinson confirmed that the Appellant was a diligent worker and an excellent timekeeper.

 

25. Weight must also be given to the fact that  there  was nothing  before the Tribunal  to indicate  that  the Appellant has any history  of behaviour  of a similar nature  or that  there  have been any subsequent events that would make her unsuitable as a Care Worker.

 

26. The evidence was clear in relation to the effect of the result on the resident There were no marks on the resident whatsoever.   Martha O'Kane, the Home Manager, examined  the  resident   immediately  after  the  allegation  was brought to her notice and nothing was found.

 

27. This Tribunal has addressed the main issues raised by the Appellant through the hearings and in respect of those issues finds as follows:

 

(i)       That she contested  the assault charges at the Magistrate's Court and appealed her conviction to the County Court never admitting her guilt nor did she show any remorse after conviction.

 

(ii)       We  accept  that  she  didn't   have  a  lawyer  or  interpreter  when interviewed by the Police but find from our observations and the evidence of Mr McDonnell, that NS has reasonable  understanding of the English language.

 

(iii)     We now find as a fact that  the  resident  was aggressive and  had a history of aggressive and challenging behaviour.     We also note the letter of the lOth July 2013, from the Appellant's General Practitioner, confirming that there was bruising on the Appellant's hand when she attended  the General Practitioner's surgery for examination after the incident occurred.


(iv)     We  have  decided   that  in  our  Judgment   Erin  Convery  was  not  a reliable witness in some areas  of her evidence.  For example, she told the  Tribunal  that  she  had  no  knowledge  of OM being  aggressive, violent or in any way disruptive in her behaviour.   When recalled  to the witness box by the Chairman  to address that specific  point, she then   told  the  Tribunal   that  she  did  have  knowledge,  from  other employees, that  the  resident had  been  aggressive.    This  was  not truthful  evidence,  in that she changed her evidence  when challenged by the Chairman on the point

 

(v)       We accept  that  NS was of previous good  character and  has a good employment history.

 

28. Arising  out  of  the  Panel's  examination of  the  papers and,  in  particular, references, records  and  the evidence of Roisin Robinson, it seems  to us that this  incident   and  assault conviction   is  a  single  blot  on  the  Appellant's excellent working record.

 

29. Whilst we accept and  recognise  that  the  resident did not suffer any evident harm, we nevertheless see this as a technical assault  on a vulnerable resident in a nursing  home.  We also note that  the assault  charge  was contested on two occasions  and on appeal  the Learned  County Court Judge, having heard all of the evidence  again, confirmed  the conviction  but varied  the sentence from one of immediate imprisonment for three  months  to three  months imprisonment suspended for  one  year.     Whilst  recognising  all  of  those points,  the  issues  addressed in paragraph 27 and  taking  into  account  the evidence  offered by the Appellant's solicitor,  Mr McDonnell, and  the weight that we give to the evidence  from Ms Convery, we acknowledge that we still have to apply the test as set out in Rule 4(9) of the 2014 Registration  Rules. Therefore, having  considered all  the  evidence  available  to  us and  having taken  into account  the seriousness of the  misconduct,  the protection of the public  and  the  public  interest in  maintaining confidence  in  the  services, together with the issue of proportionality, we have come to the unanimous conclusion  that  the  Appellant  should  not  be registered at  this  time on the Care Register.   We therefore affirm the decision as set out in the "Notice of Decision          of   the    Northern    Ireland    Social   Care   Council   Registration Committee"  dated  30th July 2014  in  confirming  that  "the  Committee  has decided to  refuse  the  Applicant's  application  for registration  in accordance with Rule 20 {16) (a) of the NISCC (Registration)  Rules 2014". This decision of the Care Tribunal does not in any way prevent or hinder the Applicant from making a future application for registration within the appropriate Rules.

 

Stephen G Quinn Q.C.

Chairman of the Care Tribunal

2nd August 2016