1. Home
  2. Parties and representatives
  3. Guidance for tribunals
  4. Tribunal guidance for PA and AA hearings
  5. Guide for Associates tribunal hearings
  6. Step 1 - decide if the PA or AAs fitness to practise remains impaired
Associates tribunal hearings

Step 1: decide if the PA or AA's fitness to practise remains impaired

Text alternative for this image can be found linked directly below.

Text alternative: step 1: decide if the PA or AA's fitness to practice remains impaired

  1. At stage one of an associates tribunal (AT) review hearing, the AT decides if the PA or AA’s fitness to practise remains impaired in relation to each of the relevant grounds for action upon which the previous decision maker had found the PA or AA to be impaired. While they cannot add or consider new grounds for action in the absence of separate matters against the PA or AA having been referred for determination, the AT should assess if the PA or AA is currently fit to practise by considering all the available relevant evidence.  

  2. To decide if a PA or AA’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the AT must assess whether that PA or AA poses any current and ongoing risk to one or more of the three parts of public protection requiring restrictive action in response. This assessment must be made with reference to the findings of the original decision maker, the findings of any decision makers who have conducted a previous review of the case, and any relevant new evidence.  

  3. On review, the following questions should be used to inform the AT’s assessment of whether a PA or AA poses any current and ongoing risk to public protection requiring restrictive action in response, and if so, what level of risk (low, medium or high): 
    • What was the previous assessment of risk and reasons given for it? 
    • What new evidence has been received since the previous assessment of risk and what impact does this have? 
    • What evidence is there of insight and is the PA or AA’s insight genuine? 
    • What evidence is there relating to remediation, has the allegation now been remedied or is it still likely to be repeated? 
    • Has the PA or AA kept their skills and knowledge up to date? 
    • Has the risk to public protection that previously required restrictive action in response changed and if so, how? 
  1. The AT will only make a finding that the PA or AA’s fitness to practise remains impaired where a decision is reached that the PA or AA poses a current and ongoing risk to one or more of the three parts of public protection requiring restrictive action in response.

  2. The decision on whether the PA or AA remains impaired is one for the AT alone, exercising their judgment. There is no burden or standard of proof. 

  3. The AT will always need to record reasons for their decision and be clear about which part(s) of public protection are engaged. Where the AT’s decision departs from the principles in this part of the guidance the AT must carefully explain how this is justified, given the specific circumstances of the case. They must also explain how the decision relates to any submissions made by the parties.