ABSTRACT
Dr Cross’s FTP case entered the public domain in February 2010, when a notice was posted on the HPC website four weeks in advance of the hearing. The allegation was set out in three points, the first of which was divided into seven separate instances amounting to the allegation of misconduct, leading, in turn, to the statement that “by reason of that misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired”. A colleague of mine spotted the case on the list of upcoming hearings and remarked on the strangeness of the allegation (Scott, 2009). I recognized the name of the registrant immediately—Dr Malcolm Cross, a recently appointed member of the new, redefined and reduced HPC Council. It was only seven months since the “practitioner psychologists” had entered the HPC register. Since HPC cases tend to take about 18 months to come to hearing, I calculated that the case must have originated quite some time ago or that it was being rushed through—probably because of the status of the defendant. Either way, to appoint someone to the new HPC Council only to then discover he was subject to a complaint raises some difficult questions.
