Notice
of Determination
The Appeal Panel considered an Appeal, lodged by the
Complainant in her letter of 16 April 2015, against the Hearing Panel’s
dismissal of this complaint The Complainant indicated three grounds for the
appeal:
1. The Complaints Procedure was not followed - principally concerned
with the fact that the Hearing Panel did not convene a formal hearing.
2.
Evidence readily available at the time was not used - referring to the tape
transcripts of sessions on 22/02/12, 24/02/12, 05/03/12 and 07/03/12 together
with attachments A, B, C and D.
3. New evidence came to light in the
registrant’s and supervisor’s statements - this refers to the statement on page
5 of the Complainant’s response which states, ‘H did not consult appropriate supervision
for my condition until 3 years into my therapy with her although she had known
that I suffered from DID right from the start in 2007. I was unaware of this
fact which became clear to me after having read H's and her supervisor’s
reply.’
The BPC Complaints Procedure (Revised version February 2011) notes
three possible grounds for appeal in paragraph 6.1, which states:
6.1. An
appeal may be made by either the complainant or the registrant complained
against on one or more of the following grounds: o that failure to follow the
complaints procedure properly may have had a material effect on the finding
and/or the sanction o that a piece of evidence that was not reasonably
available at the time of the hearing and which may have had a material effect
on the finding on the complaint was not considered o that the sanction is not
proportionate to the finding of the Hearing Panel and is unjust in all the
circumstances.
1. The Complaints Procedure was not followed The Appeal Panel
upholds this ground for appeal. The Complaints Procedure is written throughout
with the implicit assumption that a Hearing Panel will convene a formal
hearing. On the basis of the BPC Complaints Procedure (paragraphs 4.5 and
following), a Complainant or Registrant might reasonably expect there to be a
formal hearing. A decision was taken that a formal hearing would not be held in
this case. The Hearing Panel did not inform either party about the decision,
did not give any reasons why the decision was made and did not give either
party the chance to object. Paragraph 4.34 of the Complaints Procedure does
allow the Hearing Panel to decide its own procedures subject to the ‘principles
of general fairness’.
One of the principles of general fairness is that the
Hearing Panel should be seen to act in a fair and reasonable way. We do not
think that this decision, having been made without specified reasons and
without 2 communicating that decision and the reasoning behind it to the
parties involved, is either fair or reasonable.
The Appeal Panel is unable to
assure itself that the Complaints Procedure was correctly followed with regard
to its decision to dismiss the complaint without a formal hearing.
An Appeal
Panel should be able to follow through the Hearing Panel’s decision making process
as outlined in its Notice of Determination.
We are not able to do this on the
basis of the letters to the Complainant and Registrant dated 19 March 2015,
which constituted the Hearing Panel’s Notice of Determination.
This invites the
possibility that the Hearing Panel’s procedure may have been defective.
The
Complainant was not properly informed of the amendment to the Complaints
Procedure, and this could be regarded as unfair.
We consider this to be a
defect in the exercise of the Procedure. Accordingly, the Appeal Panel
considers that the appeal should be allowed on the grounds that the failure to
follow the Complaints Procedure properly may have had a material effect on the
finding and/or sanction.
The Appeal Panel considers that the Chair of the Intake
Committee should now appoint a new Hearing Panel to review the complaint.
In
light of its findings and decision in respect of the ground 1, and for reasons
of expediency, the Appeal Panel considers there is no merit in giving detailed
consideration to the other grounds of appeal.
If either ground 2 or ground 3
were made out, the appropriate remedy would be the constitution of a new
Hearing Panel.
We have taken the decision to remit this complaint back to a new
Hearing Panel in any event. The Complainant now has the opportunity to put any
new evidence to the Hearing Panel.