2024-25 archived consultation: Hearings paper process change

This consultation was previously hosted on our consultation hub. We have moved it here as part of archiving.

We asked

We sought feedback from 100 stakeholders regarding a proposed change to the Fitness to Practise (FTP) process. Currently, bundles for the GOC and the defence must be prepared 5 days prior to the hearing and are only sent to the committee once both parties have reached agreement, as stipulated in Direction 7 of the Fitness to Practise Rules 2013.

This process has resulted in instances where bundles have not been sent due to a lack of response, causing committee members to spend time reviewing the bundles during the hearing, which is not an efficient use of resources.

The proposed solution is to implement a clear deadline of 5 working days prior to the hearing for all bundles to be submitted. If no objections are raised by this deadline, the bundles will be forwarded to the committee. Reminders will be issued via the hearing questionnaire, case management meeting template, and by the administrator at intervals of 3 weeks, 2 weeks, and 1 week prior to the hearing. If a party objects to the bundle being sent in advance, it will not be forwarded. However, if no response is received after the reminders, the bundles will be sent to the committee in order to ensure the efficient use of hearing time.

You said

The consultation response from 30 stakeholders presents a mix of support and concerns regarding the proposal to send unagreed bundles to the Fitness to Practise Committee if no objections are raised.

Key points of support

• Efficiency: Many respondents support the idea, arguing it would save time, allow committee members to review materials ahead of the hearing, and reduce delays associated with last-minute submissions.
• Clear process: There is general agreement that the process should be clear to both parties, with deadlines established for objections. If no objections are raised, the bundle can be sent to the Committee in a timely manner.
• Adequate time for review: Respondents agree that providing the bundle in advance allows committee members sufficient time to study the material, leading to a fairer process and better-prepared members.
• Timely objections and preparation: The changes could encourage parties to raise objections and resolve disputes earlier in the process. It was suggested that registrants and their representatives would need to be more organised to meet deadlines, and there could be better overall preparation for hearings.

Key concerns

• Potential for prejudicial material: Some respondents, express concerns about the risk of prejudicial or inappropriate material being sent to the Committee without proper review. They argue that registrants (especially unrepresented ones) may not fully understand what can or cannot be included in the bundle and may be unable to raise objections in time.
• Lack of active case management: There is criticism of the Council's failure to manage hearing bundle preparation adequately. Some respondents argue that the responsibility for ensuring bundles are appropriate should not be shifted to registrants but should remain with the Council to propose redactions or exclusions based on admissibility, relevance, and fairness.
• Risk to fairness for unrepresented registrants: A particular concern is that unrepresented registrants might be disadvantaged, as they may not be aware of their right to object or may struggle to challenge inadmissible material without legal guidance. Some responses suggested that clear communication and training should be provided to ensure fairness and understanding, particularly for unrepresented registrants.
• Training and guidance:
• Respondents suggest that the Council should provide more training and guidance to staff responsible for compiling hearing bundles to ensure that inappropriate material is identified and removed before being sent to the Committee.
•  A strong recommendation for training was made, particularly to address concerns about the risk of prejudicial material and to ensure panel members can effectively manage objections. This would be crucial for both the legal teams and unrepresented registrants.

Overall impact

While many responses viewed the proposed changes positively in terms of improving efficiency and ensuring all parties have clear understanding of the issues prior to the hearing, there was an underlying caution about potential negative impacts, particularly on unrepresented registrants and the risk of unfairness.

We did

The consultation response shows a balance of optimism for improved efficiency and fairness, tempered by caution regarding the risks of prejudicial material, the impact on unrepresented registrants, and the need for proper training and clear communication to ensure fairness for all parties and to the proceedings, therefore we will be going ahead with the proposal.

What we plan to do with the results

1. Address concerns about fairness: We plan to ensure that the process doesn't inadvertently harm fairness, particularly for unrepresented registrants. This will include clearer communication and providing adequate support to ensure they understand the process and their rights.
2. Provide further training: We will offer additional training for those compiling bundles to ensure staff responsible for compiling hearing bundles is identified and removed before being sent to the committee. We will provide additional training for panel members, so that prejudicial material is identified and handled appropriately. This will help ensure a fairer and more transparent process.
3. Active case management: We will consider implementing more active case management to oversee the preparation of bundles and ensure that only relevant, admissible materials are included.
4. Introduce safeguards for unagreed bundles: We will take steps to ensure that the process of sending unagreed bundles to the Committee is handled cautiously, with additional safeguards to protect against the risk of introducing prejudicial material.
5. Ongoing monitoring: The implementation of these changes will be closely monitored to ensure that they deliver the expected benefits without compromising fairness. We continue to invite you to relay your thoughts and experiences with the process as we continue to review and develop the plan.

Next steps

1. Training for Committee Members – 21 March 2025
2. Update relevant material including template letters and guidance documents
3. Trial as a pilot for Health and Criminal Conviction Cases – From 6 May 2025
4. Training for Investigators and Lawyers on Legal Admissibility Redactions – July 2025
5. Full implementation of the new process across all cases – August 2025
6. Review of process and effectiveness – August 2026