Disciplinary Outcomes
Here you will find a regularly updated list of the outcomes of all cases considered by the Professional Conduct and the Disciplinary Committees (following a change in publications policy with effect from 1st July 2014).
The Register received information alleging that the Registrant:
- within a professional context, used an email signature which was unprofessional and openly offensive to and potentially discriminatory towards people with characteristics protected by the Equality Act 2010; and
- communicated with NRPSI in a way which did not assist its investigation and was inappropriate and unprofessional;
which is contrary to clauses 3.2, 3.12 and 3.16 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The PCC decided that it would be disproportionate and not in the public interest to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee on this occasion; however, they decided to:
- Warn the Registrant not to act in a manner which is or may appear to be discriminatory; and
- Advise the Registrant to reflect upon how to interact with NRPSI appropriately and professionally in the future; and also consider the potential impact of all their professional communications upon others.
The Register received a complaint alleging that the Registrant:
- failed to attend a court assignment on time, arriving three hours late not knowing where to get the interpreter forms;
- on occasions during the consultation and the hearing, was not interpreting correctly and key words/phrases used by the victim were not being relayed across;
which is contrary to clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 4.7 and 5.4 of the NRPSI Code of Professional Conduct.
The Professional Conduct Committee considered the circumstances and decided to give the Registrant the following advice:
'to maintain mindful self-reflection on professional practice activities and effectively and proactively communicate to all parties to ensure (1) clarity and (2) that where required, reasonable adjustments are made to avoid giving rise to misunderstandings or professional capability concerns.'
The Register received a complaint alleging that in connection with an assignment, the Registrant did not provide the service on time and failed to respond to emails from the Complainant; which is contrary to clauses 3.1, 5.8 and 5.10 of the Code of Professional Conduct.
The PCC concluded the case, by warning the Respondent in the following terms:
'They should:
- be mindful of the likelihood for potential misunderstanding when discussing prospective assignments
- ensure reasonable measures are in place to (1) maintain an appropriate level of consistent and effective communication in regard to your professional obligations, and (2) to keep your clients informed about your work capacity and availability'.
