7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 8 of the CONDUCT & COMPETENCE PANEL CHIROPODISTS & PODIATRISTS 9

Transcription

1 1 2 Health Professions Council, Park House, Kennington Park Road, London, SE11 4BU. 4 Thursday, 25th March IN THE MATTER OF MR. DAVID LEESON 6 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 8 of the CONDUCT & COMPETENCE PANEL CHIROPODISTS & PODIATRISTS 9 10 DISCIPLINARY PANEL DR. A. YULE (In the Chair) 11 MR. P. GRAHAM MISS L HAWKSWORTH IN ATTENDANCE MR. S. RUSSEN (Legal Assessor) REPRESENTING THE COUNCIL MISS N. HILL (of Messrs Kingsley 17 Napley) 18 THE RESPONDENT appeared in person (Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd. 22 Midway House, 27/29 Cursitor Street, London EC4A 2LT. Telephone No: Fax No: ) P R O C E E D I N G S

2 1 THE CHAIRMAN: We will now start the hearing. I hear, 2 Mr. Leeson, you have had a difficult journey getting here, 3 but just try and relax. 4 You can see in front of you the panel. I am Mr. Yule, 5 the Chairman. On my left is Miss Hawksworth, who is the lay 6 member of the panel. On my right is Peter Graham, who is the 7 chiropodist/podiatrist member of the panel. Perhaps I could 8 ask Miss Hill to introduce the other members who are here. 9 MISS HILL: Of course, sir. Good morning. My name, as you said, 10 is Nicola Hill. I am a solicitor at Kingsley Napley and I 11 appear this morning on behalf of the Council. To my right is 12 Mr. Leeson. He represents himself this morning. To his 13 right is the shorthand writer. To my left is Mrs Anne 14 Barnes, the Legal Officer, and to her left Mr. Simon Russen, 15 who is the Legal Assessor this morning. I should say that 16 Mr. Russen and I have met briefly with Mr. Leeson to explain 17 to him the procedure this morning. 18 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Could I add two things. One is, as Miss 19 Hill has said, I have spoken to Mr. Leeson to introduce 20 myself and to explain the role of Legal Assessor, which can 21 be summarised as being somebody here to ensure that the 22 proceedings are conducted properly and to hold the rein. I 23 have explained to Mr. Leeson that it would not be proper for 24 me to advise him on any aspect and I think he understands and 25 accepts that. Nor have I given him any advice. 1

3 1 The other matter I would like to disclose is I have 2 discussed with the panel an issue which I think Miss Hill is 3 going to raise almost immediately, namely the relevance and 4 admissibility of one paragraph in the witness statement of 5 Maria Spanton. 6 MISS HILL: If I can do that now. There is one small preliminary 7 matter just before that, and that is, if I could ask if we 8 could refer to the victim by her initials KC as they appear 9 in the statement of Maria Spanton. If those present could do 10 that please. 11 Sir, I do have an application to make. You will see at 12 paragraph 19 of Maria Spanton's statement that she refers to 13 two previous matters that are known with regard to 14 Mr. Leeson. I would ask you to strike through that paragraph 15 and put those matters out of your mind. They should not 16 appear in the document. They are not relevant for the 17 immediate purpose of deciding whether or not Mr. Leeson's 18 fitness to practise is impaired by reason of the conviction. 19 You should only have regard to the one conviction. 20 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes, as I say, I have already advised the 21 Committee that they should disregard those matters and it 22 follows from that that if the Committee felt they could not 23 put those matters out of their mind in deciding the primary 24 issue before them today, which is whether Mr. Leeson's 25 fitness to practise is impaired by reason of the new 2

4 1 conviction, it would not be proper for them to continue with 2 this hearing. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leeson, the Committee, I can assure you, will 4 put those matters out of their mind and also we have agreed 5 that the person concerned should be referred to by her 6 initials. Will you accept those two assurances, Mr. Leeson? 7 MR. LEESON: Yes. Can I say, Mr. Chairman, I shall be reading 8 from a statement I have prepared. I am very nervous. If it 9 pops out. I am not being disrespectful to the Committee. I 10 will endeavour to refer to her as KC at all times. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Just to make sure, for all concerned we shall be 12 referring to the lady concerned by her initials and not her 13 full name. 14 MISS HILL: Thank you, sir. There is one more preliminary 15 matter, and it is this. I do not know whether you have a 16 copy of the charge in front of you. Can I make an 17 application to amend that slightly. Sir, it was drafted at a 18 time when we were not aware of the outcome of Mr. Leeson's 19 appeal to Canterbury Crown Court and therefore it includes in 20 it the fact that he was initially ordered to pay compensation 21 to the victim. Can I therefore amend the charge. It 22 begins: "At Thanet Magistrates' Court on 22nd May 2003 for 23 harassment contrary to sections 2(1) and (2) of the 24 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 when you were made the 25 subject of a Community Punishment Order for 80 hours and were 3

5 1 ordered to pay towards the prosecution costs. A restraining 2 order was imposed for a period of two years." I couch it in 3 those terms because it is not clear whether the 183 imposed 4 was in addition to that originally imposed at the 5 Magistrates' Court or instead of, so I have just left it to 6 be general. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leeson is aware of that change? 8 MR. LEESON: I am, Mr. Chairman. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: So we accept that change. Thank you very much. 10 Mr. Leeson, we just want to remind you that the issue is 11 whether your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of 12 your conviction. That is what we are looking at and what 13 order, if any, we would make if that is found to be proved. 14 We are not actually here to retry the case. We are just here 15 to look at your fitness to practise with respect to the 16 verdict. You do understand that? We cannot go through the 17 case and say whether you are guilty or not guilty. That has 18 already been tried. We are here to look at your fitness to 19 practise in future. Is that accepted by you? 20 MR. LEESON: Unfortunately, I have only just been told about 21 this. What I prepared essentially were all the circumstances 22 surrounding my relationship. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: The circumstances surrounding is all right. What 24 we cannot do is reverse the verdict. 25 MR. LEESON: I am here because my character has been called into 4

6 1 question as a result of a conviction against me. The panel 2 will obviously have a certain amount of prejudice when it 3 comes to the fact that I have been convicted of a crime. 4 I will go through the circumstances of my relationship. 5 The circumstances prior to my conviction with regards to my 6 legal representation. I am not asking the panel to THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot reverse the decision of the court. 8 MR. LEESON: I realise that. All I am here to do is to tell you 9 the truth. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: We are not prejudiced by the decision. I can 11 assure you of that. 12 MR. LEESON: The reason I am here is because of a label. I have 13 a conviction. I cannot change that. I do not know how to 14 change it. All I can explain to you are the facts 15 surrounding the case before and after. I hope I do not waste 16 your time. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: You are certainly not wasting our time. We are 18 here to listen. There may be times when I have to stop you 19 and explain things. It might be just going a bit too far 20 with the evidence. It is not that we are being impolite, but 21 it might be that at some time I need to take some advice. Is 22 that clear enough? We are trying to be informal today and we 23 do want to put you at your ease. Do you accept that, 24 Mr. Leeson? Having said that, perhaps I could ask Miss Hill 25 to continue. 5

7 1 MISS HILL: Yes, sir. Can I begin by dealing with service, 2 please, and in order to do that can I ask Mrs Barnes to take 3 the oath? 4 MRS ANNE BARNES, SWORN 5 EXAMINED BY MISS HILL 6 Q. If you could just confirm your name and your position with 7 the Health Professions Council? 8 A. Mrs Anne Barnes and I am Director of Fitness to Practise, the 9 Health Professions Council. 10 Q. Could you confirm please for the panel the details of 11 Mr. Leeson's registration? 12 A. Mr. David Leeson's registration number is CH9177 and his 13 registered address is Ashmount, Lower Northdown Avenue, 14 Margate, Kent, CT9 2NJ. His date of birth is 7th June The date of his initial registration was 12th September and he is currently on the register. 17 Q. Can I turn to service now please. Can you confirm that you 18 sent to Mr. Leeson a notice of allegation dated 20th October ? 20 A. 15th October Q. It is dated at the top of the page 15th October, but the 22 signature at the back is actually dated 20th October. 23 A. Yes, that is right. I have it here. 24 Q. You sent that to the Ashmount, Lower Northdown Avenue 25 address? 6

8 1 A. Yes, I did. 2 Q. You then notified Mr. Leeson of a preliminary meeting and you 3 notified him of that on 6th November 2003? 4 A. Yes, that is right. 5 Q. Sir, as I think you may be aware, there was initially a final 6 hearing set for earlier this year that was adjourned. Can I 7 just confirm, Mrs Barnes, that you notified Mr. Leeson of the 8 first final hearing in a letter dated 1st December 2003? 9 A. That is right. 10 Q. You notified him of today's hearing by letter dated 30th 11 January 2004? 12 A. That is right. 13 MISS HILL: Sir, I confirm that Kingsley Napley served its full 14 bundle of papers upon Mr. Leeson on 16th December 2003 at the 15 registered address. Are you satisfied that service is 16 correct? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Leeson is here so MISS HILL: If I could ask Mrs Barnes to read out the charge 19 please? 20 A. You were given notice on behalf of the Conduct and Competence 21 Committee that your fitness to practise as a registered 22 health professional is impaired by reason of your conviction 23 at Thanet Magistrates' Court on 22nd May 2003 for harassment 24 contrary to sections 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from 25 Harassment Act 1997 when you made the subject of a Community 7

9 1 Punishment Order for 80 hours and were ordered to pay towards 2 the prosecution costs and a restraining order was imposed for 3 a period of two years. 4 MISS HILL: Thank you, Mrs Barnes, that is all. 5 (The witness withdrew) 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leeson, you are defending yourself. You have 7 no representation? 8 MR. LEESON: No. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We will all try and help you with any problem you 10 may have. We cannot give you advice, but at least we can 11 give you advice as to how to conduct the hearing. 12 MISS HILL: Sir, if I may open in this way. You have heard that 13 Mr. Leeson is a state registered chiropodist and has been so 14 since 12th September He appeared at Thanet 15 Magistrates' Court on 22nd May 2003 when, following a trial, 16 he was found guilty of one charge of harassment contrary to 17 sections 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act He was sentenced for this offence on 16th June 2003 by 19 the Magistrates' Court to a community punishment order for hours. He was also ordered to pay 450 by way of 21 compensation to the victim. He was also ordered to pay towards the prosecution costs. The court also made a 23 restraining order subject to section 5 of the Protection from 24 Harassment Act prohibiting the defendant from contacting the 25 victim for a period of two years from 16th June

10 1 Mr. Leeson appealed against this conviction. His 2 appeal was heard at Canterbury Crown Court on 10th October Sir, at this time the conviction was upheld, but the 4 sentence was amended so that he still faced a community 5 punishment order of 80 hours, but he was no longer required 6 to pay compensation to the victim. He was also ordered to 7 pay 183 towards the prosecution costs. 8 You have in your bundle a detailed statement of 9 DS Maria Spanton, the officer in this case, and you will also 10 be hearing live evidence from her today. 11 To summarise, however, Mr. Leeson was convicted of 12 harassment following repeated telephone contact and letter 13 contact with an ex partner between 14th June 2002 and 9th 14 July In particular, on 14th June he made 160 calls to 15 her within a period of five hours. Mr. Leeson was arrested 16 and interviewed on 17th July We say that Mr. Leeson's fitness to practise as a 18 health professional is impaired by reason of this conviction. 19 Mr. Leeson's behaviour was intimidating, unprofessional and 20 resulted in a criminal conviction. 21 Sir, as I have said, I will be calling live evidence 22 today from DS Spanton, but, first of all, can I take you 23 through the other papers you have in your bundle. I hope you 24 have all had them in sufficient time to consider them prior 25 to today. 9

11 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leeson has a copy of the bundle? 2 MISS HILL: He does, sir, yes. Sir, on page 1 is a certificate of 3 conviction from Thanet Magistrates' Court. It is confirming 4 Mr. Leeson's address, date of birth, the conviction and the 5 penalty, the 80 hours community punishment order. This is 6 signed as a true extract. 7 Between pages 2 and 4 appear the documents from 8 Canterbury Crown Court and in particular on page 4 a document 9 entitled "Result of an Appeal" which shows that 10 Mr. Leeson was convicted on 22nd May 2003 at Thanet 11 Magistrates' Court, the orders made at that court and that 12 the appeal was heard on 10th October. It was ordered that 13 the appeal against conviction be dismissed but the sentence 14 be varied so there was no need to pay compensation. Again, 15 this is certified and signed by an officer of the Crown 16 Court. 17 Sir, I would now like to call DS Maria Spanton to give 18 evidence please. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leeson knows the process with respect to 20 witnesses? 21 MISS HILL: We explained to him before that initially I ask 22 DS Spanton questions, then he would have the opportunity to 23 do the same and then members of the panel may wish to ask 24 questions as well. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: That has been explained to you, Mr. Leeson, I 10

12 1 trust? 2 MR. LEESON: Yes. 3 DS MARIA SPANTON, SWORN 4 EXAMINED BY MISS HILL 5 Q. Good morning, DS Spanton. I just have some questions for 6 you. You will see before you a black file, the bundle in 7 this matter. Can I just ask you to confirm, first of all, 8 your name and position for the panel? 9 A. My name is Maria Spanton and I am a police sergeant for Kent 10 Police. 11 Q. Can I ask you what your role was at the time of your 12 investigation into Mr. Leeson? 13 A. I was a police constable and I was working in the crime 14 group, which is the CID department, at Margate Police 15 Station. 16 Q. If I can refer you please to page 5 of the bundle. You will 17 see that is where your statement begins and it finishes on 18 page 9. Can I just ask you to confirm that is your signature 19 on page 9? 20 A. Yes, it is. 21 Q. Following that, up to page 43, your exhibits appear to the 22 end of the bundle? 23 A. Yes, they do. 24 Q. Can I ask you to confirm that you adopt the contents of both 25 your statement and your exhibits? 11

13 1 A. Yes, I do. 2 Q. The panel have had your statement and your exhibits for 3 sometime now so we do not need to go through them in a great 4 deal of detail, but I do want to take you through some of the 5 points. 6 Can you describe for the panel, please, how Mr. Leeson 7 came to meet KC in this matter? 8 A. They met on 28th February 2002 in a nightclub at Ramsgate. 9 KC was out with friends and Mr. Leeson was sitting at the 10 same table as her. Would you like me to continue? 11 Q. Yes, please. 12 A. During the course of the evening they got to know each other 13 and went back to KC's home address. They talked and drank 14 coffee together and Mr. Leeson left to go home after a couple 15 of hours and following this they started a relationship which 16 lasted approximately four months. 17 Q. You say during your statement that Mr. Leeson allowed KC to 18 leave a vehicle on his driveway. Can you describe the 19 circumstances of that, please, for the panel? 20 A. What actually happened is Mr. Leeson allowed KC to park her 21 car on his driveway because her tax disc had expired. 22 Q. You go on to explain in your statement that Mr. Leeson became 23 possessive towards KC during the period of their 24 relationship. Again, can you enlarge on that for me, please, 25 and explain that to the panel? 12

14 1 A. It was about four weeks into the relationship when Mr. Leeson 2 started to become possessive. He would go through her mobile 3 phone checking numbers and deleting those of her male 4 friends. He would also text some of them asking them not to 5 contact her and Mr. Leeson was sending messages as if they 6 were from KC. KC did not like the way Mr. Leeson was 7 behaving and so ended the relationship on 14th June She ended the relationship with Mr. Leeson at her house. He 9 had been drinking, but I am not clear whether she had 10 actually been drinking, but Mr. Leeson refused to leave, but 11 eventually left two hours later. 12 Q. The Committee have seen from the certificate of conviction 13 that Mr. Leeson made a number of telephone calls to KC 14 following that. Can you confirm how many telephone calls he 15 made during the 14th June please? 16 A. He had actually made 160 calls which were received on KC's 17 mobile telephone within a period of five hours. 18 Q. How can you be sure of that number? 19 A. It was done by a counter on KC's mobile phone. It counts up 20 to 100 and then it resets itself and that left the remaining which meant there were 160 on her mobile phone. 22 Q. Are you aware whether or not KC spoke with Mr. Leeson during 23 any of these initial conversations? 24 A. She did actually speak to him. She did have one conversation 25 and Mr. Leeson said that he wanted to see her and wanted to 13

15 1 talk to her, but KC said that she did not want to see him or 2 talk to him. She only wanted her car back. 3 Q. After the initial bout of telephone calls, did KC receive any 4 more from Mr. Leeson? 5 A. Yes, she did. After the relationship had ended KC received 6 about 30 calls per day from Mr. Leeson that is not including 7 the 160 Mr. Leeson made. 8 Q. You then go on to describe an incident which took place at 9 the Red Lion Public House on 21st June. Can you just enlarge 10 on that for the panel, please? There was an incident in the 11 morning of the 21st. I should have taken you to that first. 12 Can you describe that first and then go on to the incident in 13 the public house? 14 A. On 21st June KC went to Mr. Leeson's house to collect her car 15 and noticed that two of the tyres were flat. She actually 16 phoned Mr. Leeson and asked what had happened to her car. 17 Mr. Leeson said he had done it to stop the car being stolen. 18 Following on from that, that evening, KC went to the 19 Red Lion Public House and Mr. Leeson followed her in. He 20 tried to be nice to her by whispering in her ear and putting 21 his arm around her. When I interviewed Mr. Leeson I did not 22 actually ask him about this during the course of the 23 interview, but Mr. Leeson was asked to leave the pub by the 24 landlord who had been alerted to his behaviour because KC 25 started to become nervous. 14

16 1 Q. To which telephone numbers did Mr. Leeson make the calls and 2 from which telephones did he make the calls? 3 A. Mr. Leeson at the time of this offence did not own a mobile 4 telephone. Calls to KC came from his home address or his 5 surgery. KC actually received the calls on her mobile phone 6 and her home telephone. 7 Q. Is it true that she had to change her BT land telephone 8 number? 9 A. Yes, that is correct. She changed her telephone number on 10 28th June and made her home telephone number ex directory. 11 Q. What happened following that in relation to the land 12 telephone line? 13 A. Mr. Leeson managed to obtain her new number the next day from 14 one of KC's friends and so KC had to have the number changed 15 again. Then what actually happened was British Telecom 16 blocked his home telephone number and his surgery telephone 17 number and, as KC was also receiving calls from a public 18 telephone box, that number was also blocked as well. 19 Q. Can you explain to the panel the events of 1st July when KC 20 went to collect her car with a neighbour? 21 A. On 1st July 2002 KC went to collect her car with a neighbour 22 from Mr. Leeson. She noticed that Mr. Leeson had put a chain 23 and padlock on his driveway. She had not seen this chain or 24 padlock before. She believed they were new. KC tried to 25 pump up the tyres on her car, but they would not inflate 15

17 1 because then she found out they had been slashed. 2 Q. You go on to say that when KC went home that evening she 3 found a letter from Mr. Leeson and you exhibit that letter as 4 MS2 and another letter as MS3. Can I ask you to turn please 5 to page 13 and can I ask you to read those two letters for 6 the panel? 7 A. The letter is on headed notepaper entitled Dr. D.J. Leeson. 8 It is dated 1st July It says: "Dear Kim, this is 9 getting silly! If you want legal advice ask a judge, 10 barrister or solicitor, not the police. This is a civil not 11 a criminal matter. I would like to give you some advice. 12 Before attempting to make spurious allegations against a 13 professional man, please consider the legal (both criminal 14 and civil) ramifications and consequences. This matter can 15 be sorted out amicably. Meet me at my surgery at 6 pm today. 16 If not, please furnish me with the name and address of your 17 solicitor. My legal firm has copies of tapes made within the 18 terms of the October 2000 Human Rights Act that will be 19 supplied to your legal representative only if criminal or 20 civil action is brought against me. I will not be 21 threatened. Please, I have no wish to destroy your life, but 22 if I am given a choice between you and I, I will use the law. 23 There are four section 9 statements held with my solicitors 24 pending any criminal or civil action against you or myself. 25 They, in the advent of the aforesaid, will be released to the 16

18 1 CPS and the police. Please will you try and sort this out 2 with me on a one to one basis. Is your pride really worth 3 all this aggro? If I didn't feel what I feel for you I would 4 not be giving you this chance. You have made many silly 5 mistakes over the past weeks. Don't pay for them please. 6 Trust me. Talking to me is the cheapest and easiest way 7 forward. Only set things in motion with my solicitors 8 because of the threats you made in the early hours of Friday 9 morning (28/6/02; 2:14-2:47am). Please, let us sort it 10 out. Don't hurt me any more. I have also reinstigated 11 charges of threats to kill and criminal damage made by Peter 12 on your phone in a section 9 statements hold by my 13 solicitors. Yours sincerely, Dr. D.J. Leeson." A copy went 14 to A Cox of Boys & Maughan and DS Fox at Kent County 15 Constabulary. 16 Q. The second letter begins at page A. It is on lined paper and it says "c.c. Sharon and Norman. A 18 control freak is someone that controls most of the parameters 19 of a relationship. Isn't that what you have been doing for 20 months? How to wear my hair, when I can see you, what I can 21 say to you and when I can, when we make love, where we make 22 love, how I leave the toilet seat, when to shower and clean 23 my teeth (OK the last two was for my good), I must stop 24 drinking, I am not allowed to go to the casino, if I complain 25 I am a control freak or a bully. Why do you think I have put 17

19 1 up with it? (1) Because I am weak mentally? (2) Because I 2 am weak physically? (3) Because I don't have the breadth of 3 vocabulary to allow me to express myself effectively or to 4 have no pride? (4) Because I need you financially? NO - 5 BECAUSE I LOVE YOU. Maybe I have been childish over Lefty 6 and the car, but you really hurt me when you lie. Maybe 7 knowing when you are lying should be enough for all - but I 8 suppose it is only natural to confront you. Maybe I am 9 wrong. The fact is that there are so many inconsistencies in 10 what you tell me, and I am not a stupid man. Every time I 11 confront you with anything, you try to shift the blame on to 12 me. Isn't that a sign of guilt. My true colours, as you put 13 it, is a man who loves you completely and is hurting 14 terribly, but has too much pride to be walked over. Even 15 taking into account your tragic past, I will compromise but I 16 can't be used as a whipping boy. It is simple - don't hurt 17 me. Always open, honest and truthful and show me just some 18 respect. Is that so hard? I will do the same for you. That 19 is coming half way. Love always, David." 20 Q. Then the next one. 21 A. The next one is on lined paper again. It says: "Kim, this 22 all started when I confronted you with an inconsistency about 23 what you told me about Lefty's police check. What you told 24 me in the past and what I was told when I tried to chase up 25 mine, and what Pru told me. When you were confronted you 18

20 1 just pushed me away and refused to talk. That is not how you 2 treat even a friend far less a lover. If you were jealous of 3 another woman I would do everything in my power to convince 4 you that y our jealousy was unfounded. That is what is 5 normal. Unless I was lying!!! I love you but I need to know 6 the truth. The phrase "Love is never having to say sorry" is 7 bullocks if taken literally. What it means is when someone 8 you love says sorry they know they will always be forgiven. 9 True love is a stronger force than pride and trust in someone 10 you love can only be destroyed by doubt. It is the 11 responsibility of both partners to get rid of doubts if they 12 ever arise. To protect the trust that is implicit in love. 13 And I really love you! (Even if I cannot spell) Love 14 always, David." 15 Q. Then the final one which begins at page 20 please. 16 A. It is on lined paper again and it just says 3 at the top: "I 17 spent one hour listening to you complaining about Charlie. 18 Not saying thank you or please and assuming she has a right 19 to money. When was the last time you thanked me for taking 20 you out, buying you a meal or paying for shopping? Didn't 21 you use the money I learnt you to pay for your breaks to buy 22 a new phone!!! Without my permission. Yes, I would have 23 said OK. In fact I would never have taken the money back, 24 but that is not the point, is it? You assumed and then you 25 moan about your daughter treating you the way you treat me. 19

21 1 I knew if I said that that is the pot calling the kettle 2 black. I would have been thrown out. That is always your 3 reaction. I did say example is better than perception, but 4 thankfully you didn't understand. I just want to be treated 5 decently. The way you would like your daughter to treat 6 you!" It is unsigned. 7 Q. If I can take you back to page 7 please of your statement, 8 when did KC report these incidents to the police? 9 A. KC made a report to the police on 5th July A uniformed 10 officer attended her house and took details for our crime 11 report. It was whilst the uniformed officer was at KC's 12 house that Mr. Leeson made several telephone calls to her. 13 The officer was aware that in order to prosecute we needed to 14 prove harassment and therefore KC was asked to log all calls 15 and letters received from Mr. Leeson from that time. 16 Q. That log is exhibited at MS4, which begins at page 22. I 17 shall not ask you to read all of it, but I could ask you to 18 refer to two extracts please. The first one is on page It is the entry of 5th July at 17.12, that rather lengthy 20 entry. Could I ask you to read that out please? 21 A. "I asked him what he wanted. He asked me what the police had 22 asked when they were there (How did he know that?). I didn't 23 answer. He said he wanted to talk to sort this out once and 24 for all. I told him that I was not meeting him face to face. 25 There was no need. He replied 'that is your problem'." And 20

22 1 KC ended the call. 2 Q. Can I take you to the bottom of the page to the entry at and ask you to read that, please? 4 A. "Withheld number. David. He asked how he was going to leave 5 a message when I had blocked his number from calling my home 6 phone - I said leave a message on my mobile voice if it was 7 about the car." 8 Q. Then again to the bottom of that page, the entry on 8th July: 9 A. "Voice mail. David pm Hi, Kim, it's me. I left it 10 till lunchtime because your probably in lesson. Listen. We 11 need to sort this out, OK. I can't phone you because I get 12 sworn at or I get an immature 18 year old or a 8 year old 13 talking to me or I get the phone put down on me. You won't 14 give me a solicitor's phone number or name. The only way we 15 can communicate to sort this out is face to face. You know 16 where I am today. I will be here until 4.00 o'clock. That 17 is after you finish work. I don't really know what your 18 problem is. Em I will do nothing. You have to take this 19 seriously. I will do nothing to harm you but I will protect 20 myself alright. Everything I said to you the other day about 21 how I got the telephone number I will say...and simply. A 22 statement, a true statement is one that cannot be disproved. 23 Remember that. Please I want to talk to you. Please I am 24 recording this just now. Unless you get back to me within 25 the next 7 days I will have the car removed and scrapped. I 21

23 1 am in my right to do that. I have no keys. The only damage 2 that will be done is the hand brake cable cut. I don't want 3 it on my property. I would like to sort this. I want to 4 talk to you. I want to talk to you. All the times I have 5 tried. I have 15 messages on my phone from you. Talk to 6 me." 7 Q. Then over the page at 27 there is a rather lengthy entry. I 8 am afraid I am going to have to ask you to read that out 9 please. 10 A. This is a voice mail message left on 5th July 2002: "At 11 least now it is diverted to voic . I cant have any 12 communication with you if you keep putting the phone down on 13 me. Either give me your solicitor's number or talk to me. 14 It is as simple as that. I am not going to be threatened the 15 way that you have done. All those calls that you left 16 between 2 and 3 in the morning. There are 8 calls between 2 17 and 3 in the morning. Look, I have tried to talk to you on 18 the phone. Please either talk to be face to face. I am at 19 Ashmount tomorrow morning. You know I am at Ramsgate Monday. 20 I finish at...well, if you want to phone me there, phone me 21 there or leave a message. I will wait. I finish at Sweetheart, I know you don't like me calling you sweetheart. 23 Kim, I cant talk to you, there is no getting through to you. 24 It is simple. You owe me money, you used me. I know that 25 and you know that. There is a professor and a taxi driver. 22

24 1 Both independent witnesses. You don't have any independent 2 witnesses. You just have friends. Professor Hussain and the 3 taxi driver, the taxi driver who I got to pick you up the day 4 you phoned me. I don't want to do this. You don't want to 5 phone me at 3 in the morning with profanities. You don't 6 want to do that It is me again. You are obviously on 7 the phone listening to the message. Listen I did not. That 8 letter that I sent you, it is not a threat. If you listen to 9 it, if you read it when you are sober and not on one of your 10 nights out on the piss, you will realise that I am saying 11 that this is what I have to put in place to protect myself 12 from your insinuations." 13 THE CHAIRMAN: We will retire for a couple of minutes. 14 (After a short break) 15 MISS HILL: You were at the top of page A. "OK, what I said to you yesterday afternoon is just what I am 17 going to say to the police. How can you possibly talk about 18 me getting a phone number. There is no way the police would 19 have given it to me. No way. It's stupid. Who would have 20 given it to me? Think about it. The person who gave it to 21 me thinks I am the best thing that ever happened to you. 22 Think about it. I know who had your number. The other thing 23 is can you tell me, I wonder why, can you explain to me why 24 Lefty's got it. This is not I pushed a button and everyone 25 got my number. You had to have given your land line number 23

25 1 to Left. Em. Maybe my first impression was right. The 2 reason I talked about the human rights act is because, if you 3 instigate an action knowingly. Knowing someone's emotional 4 response would be such, it is entrapment. That is what I 5 meant. Ask a solicitor, ask any solicitor, any. I have 6 Human Rights Act Entrapment, not harassment, 7 entrapment, please. Look, all I want to do is sort this out. 8 Phone me. Meet me. I am leaving the practice now. You have 9 Pauline's number. You have Matt's number. You have all the 10 numbers, phone me." That is the end of that message. New 11 message: "The call, the answer phone you left me telling me 12 that the police were being investigated. Listen that's 13 silly. For someone in your position, smoking dope, actively 14 associating with people who actively take and deal class A 15 drugs. Someone who wakes in the morning, gets into a car 16 knowingly drunk from the night before. This is a small town. 17 No one likes being investigated. Will you please stop it. 18 For your own sake will you stop it. You are out of your 19 depth. You are out of your depth. Trust me, sweetheart. I 20 know you don't like me calling you sweetheart. That is how I 21 still feel about you. Your getting out of your depth. Look. 22 You are out four nights a week pissing it up. You get in 23 your car and you drive. You smoke dope. You associate with 24 people who take and deal class A drugs and I have seen it. I 25 have seen it. That is why we left a party because I didn't 24

26 1 want to be associated with it. Don't be stupid. Not in your 2 position. There is nothing I would rather see than you 3 getting your teachers certificate. Nothing. But you are 4 not...you don't go around making accusations. What your 5 doing to me. What your doing to other people. What am I 6 going to do with you. Please...please...this is the last 7 message I am going to leave. Please...please." These 8 messages were listen to by Andrea Lefevre. 9 Q. In your statement you go on to say that on the day the report 10 was made to the police that KC received another 11 telephone 11 calls from David Leeson and then you say on 8th July he wrote 12 to her again, and this is the final document I am going to 13 ask you to read out. This is exhibit MS5 and it begins at 14 page 31. If I could ask you to read that out as well, 15 please. 16 A. The letter is on headed notepaper. Dr. D.J. Leeson and it 17 starts: "My dearest Kim, I wouldn't have phoned you if you 18 had not phoned me at 3 am on your mobile. We have to sort 19 this out. The only way is to talk. I have asked for your 20 solicitors address but you know it would be easier and 21 cheaper to talk. I have never threatened you. I just told 22 you what I had put in place in case of you trying to use the 23 harassment law to get your own way. I have no wish to see 24 you harmed. I just want to talk to you. Any time I talk to 25 you on the phone I just get swearing and get cut off!!! How 25

27 1 can we negotiate like that? You have asked me to sort things 2 out on many occasions. Please let me. I will not be told 3 what you want and then have the phone put down on me. That 4 is not the way one negotiates. I just want to sort this out. 5 I phone you at a normal time in the day not at 2:45-3:00 6 etc. leaving 8 messages. Please, if you want to sort this 7 out let me phone you. All I want is a resolution. It is 8 interesting that Lefty has your new land line number. Can 9 you tell me this, that it was a press of a button? The 10 reason I mentioned the October 2000 Human Rights Act is that 11 if you actively instigate a reaction from an individual 12 knowing his/her response, it is seen as entrapment. Being 13 drunk at 3 am is not legal defence for not given out your 14 mobile number!!! I will not be treated as a prat. I just 15 want to sort this out without hassle. Love always, David." 16 Q. Thank you. If I can refer you back to page 7, on what day 17 was Mr. Leeson arrested? 18 A. Mr. Leeson was arrested on 17th July Q. Did you interview him on that day? 20 A. Yes, I did. 21 Q. Was he represented at the police station? 22 A. Yes, he was. When he came into custody he was seen by the 23 custody nurse. I believe he had been drinking, but the nurse 24 said that he was fit for interview and he asked to be 25 represented by a duty solicitor from Godfrey Davies and 26

28 1 Waitt. 2 Q. Did Mr. Leeson answer your questions during interview? 3 A. Whilst I was interviewing him I gave him every opportunity to 4 answer my questions, but he said no comment throughout. 5 Q. You will see that the transcript of that interview begins at 6 page 34. I do not intend for it to be read through now, but 7 that is something I would ask you to consider when you retire 8 to make your decision. 9 Officer, what happened to Mr. Leeson following 10 interview? 11 A. Based on the evidence that I had, giving Mr. Leeson the 12 opportunity to answer my questions during interview, I 13 charged him with harassment under section 2(1) and (2) of the 14 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and he was bailed with 15 conditions to appear at Margate's Magistrates' court. 16 Q. Do you know the conditions of bail? 17 A. It is not in my statement. It would have been not to contact 18 KC and not to go within 50 metres of her home address. 19 Q. Did he abide by those conditions? 20 A. Yes, he did. 21 Q. Officer, the panel have already seen the evidence from the 22 Magistrates' Court and Canterbury Crown Court as to the date 23 and outcome of the trial and the appeal. Did you have any 24 further contact with the victim KC when you became aware that 25 Mr. Leeson was appealing? 27

29 1 A. I did not. It was one of my colleagues who had contact with 2 her. When she found out that Mr. Leeson was appealing she 3 made a further statement. 4 Q. What did she say during that statement? 5 A. She made a Victim Personal Statement on 4th September She said that she become agitated whenever answering the 7 telephone and she had to change her BT land line four times. 8 She describes being paranoid and now has problems forming 9 lasting relationships with anyone. She refers to receiving 10 numerous bunches of flowers at home and at work from 11 Mr. Leeson during the original commission of the offence. 12 She describes having a considerable amount of time off work 13 sick, due to his behaviour. She said that when she found out 14 that Mr. Leeson was going to appeal it brought everything 15 back to her. 16 MR. HILL: Officer, thank you. I do not have any more questions 17 for you, but Mr. Leeson may have. 18 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. LEESON 19 Q. You said that the original complaint by KC was made on 5th 20 July. Are you quite sure about that? 21 A. I have to go by the information I have in front of me. Yes, 22 it was the 5th July. 23 Q. The letters you read out were written on lined paper, what 24 date were they sent? Were they sent the same time or was 25 this a series of letters indicating numerous attempts of 28

30 1 contact? 2 A. The exhibit MS5 is undated. 3 Q. Specifically the letters on lined paper? 4 A. Those letters are undated. 5 Q. What I am asking is, were they received at the same time? 6 What were the circumstances under which they were received? 7 A. I do not have any information about that. 8 Q. The initial charge of harassment was on 14th June I 9 was in KC's home in a drunken state. I refused to leave. I 10 followed her around and made her feel nervous. Eventually I 11 did leave and later that day, within five hours, I made phone calls. What evidence was produced to show that I made phone calls. 14 MISS HILL: Sir, at this stage I will have to step in. I am 15 afraid both courts, the Magistrates' Court and the Crown 16 Court, have found that to be found. Those are matters 17 Mr. Leeson has been convicted of. I do not know if 18 Mr. Russen wants to step in as well? 19 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Mr. Leeson, if you go to the bundle of 20 papers, the first page of it is the certified memorandum from 21 the Magistrates' Court which deals with the conviction. It 22 says that the offence charged, which the Magistrates found 23 proved, was that...the particulars are there. The first 24 particular is the span of dates, which is 14th June 2002 to 25 9th July 2002, and then it gives particulars of the 29

31 1 harassment that is alleged to have occurred within that time 2 span. Specifically on 14th June 160 calls within a period of 3 five hours. There were sent two letters and over 20 calls 4 since 5th July. You accept that those are the particulars of 5 the offence of which you were convicted? 6 MR. LEESON: I accept that those are the particulars of the 7 offence of which I was convicted, yes. 8 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: That probably answers the objection Miss 9 Hill is making, which is that this Committee cannot go behind 10 the conviction. It cannot second-guess the conviction that 11 was initially recorded at the Magistrates' Court and upheld 12 on appeal at the Canterbury Crown Court. They cannot say, 13 "We acknowledge that the conviction was made, but we do not 14 agree with it." 15 THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot reconsider any evidence today because 16 that evidence has already been given. 17 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: In so far as it is within the confines of 18 the allegation that was proved. 19 MR. LEESON: The thing is, Mr. Chairman, the evidence has never 20 been given as to the specific reason. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You would have to pursue that, which you did, 22 through another court. You cannot pursue it through this 23 Committee. 24 MR. LEESON: By the time I went there, I was too late. DS 25 Spanton, during the three weeks between 14th June and 17th 30

32 1 July, did you ask KC whether she had instigated any of the 2 contact that I had made? 3 A. I did not personally ask KC. That was my colleague. Within 4 her statement, which was taken by my colleague, she does 5 admit making phone calls to Mr. Leeson. I would have to look 6 at the dates when she made those phone calls. 7 Q. Can you remember if she mentioned anything about the content 8 or the flavour of those phone calls that were made? 9 A. No. 10 Q. When I was charged and bailed you gave me a piece of advice 11 which I took very seriously, which was not to contact KC 12 whatsoever and if I did so I would be in very serious 13 trouble. You also, if I remember, said that you would be 14 giving the same piece of advice to KC. Did you in fact do 15 that? 16 A. From memory I believe that I did. The point of reinforcing 17 the bail conditions is the fact that whenever I place anyone 18 on bail I reinforce it by saying if they break those bail 19 conditions they will be in trouble because it would result in 20 them going back to court. 21 Regarding KC, there were no bail conditions imposed on 22 her so it would not be in the same manner, but, of course, it 23 would not help the matter if she did get into contact with 24 Mr. Leeson. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: What the witness is saying is with respect to KC 31

33 1 the same bail conditions would not be given, but some advice 2 would. 3 MR. LEESON: During the time the actions I have been convicted of 4 which, according to the court, amounted to harassment, took 5 place, KC was extremely nervous. Would you say frightened? 6 A. I cannot comment because I can only go on what she has put in 7 her statement and her victim statement. 8 Q. The contact that I made by either phone or by letter would 9 you from experience look at the content and consider that the 10 contact was unsolicited and not wanted? Is there anything 11 there which suggests anything other than contact between 12 individuals in a relationship which is going through a rocky 13 patch from your experience? 14 A. I am not sure if I can answer that. 15 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: I think it is a comment you can legitimately 16 make if you wanted to. The Committee can exercise their own 17 judgment about the matter. 18 A. My personal opinion never came into this. 19 MR. LEESON: I have no further questions, DS Spanton. Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We have no questions, thank you. 21 (The witness withdrew) 22 MISS HILL: Sir, I am not exactly sure of the time, but if I 23 could just finish my case before lunch. 24 As I have said before, based on all the evidence before 25 you, it is the Council's case that Mr. Leeson fitness to 32

34 1 practise is impaired by reason of this conviction for 2 harassment. 3 I ask that when you reach your decision you put 4 yourself in his patients' shoes. Would they be comfortable 5 knowing that Mr. Leeson has a conviction such as this? 6 Surely by the nature of this professional relationship and 7 this therapeutic relationship, Mr. Leeson has himself to deal 8 with people. He has shown quite clearly that he cannot do 9 that. He dealt with the victim in this case in an antisocial 10 and manipulative manner and I ask you to bear that in mind 11 when you reach your decision. 12 The first stage is that you decide whether or not the 13 conviction has been proved before you. The second stage is 14 whether or not because of that conviction his fitness to 15 practise is impaired. Sir, if you do decide his fitness to 16 practise is impaired then I will address you as to penalty 17 today, but that comes later on. That concludes the Council's 18 case, sir. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Leeson, following lunch you will be entitled 20 to put your case. I believe you have witnesses, is that 21 correct? 22 MR. LEESON: Yes, it is. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Will you be calling witnesses before you address 24 us? 25 MR. LEESON: No, I think I would probably be stopped by you at 33

35 1 certain points. I do not know when I will be calling my 2 witnesses. I have listen to what Miss Hill has said and I 3 will have to rethink what I will be saying to you. For me to 4 justify my actions and not attempt to ask you go behind the 5 conviction is a very fine line. I will try and do it. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: We accept that Mr. Leeson. You will be given 7 guidance as to exactly what you can say and cannot, but we 8 are here to listen to you. Having said that, we will break 9 for lunch and we will resume again at 1.30 pm. 10 (After a short adjournment) 11 If everyone is here, we will resume the hearing. 12 Mr. Leeson, it is your turn to put your case forward. 13 MR. LEESON: First, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I 14 have prepared a defence completely different to the one that 15 I am going to have to give. I know ignorance is know 16 defence, but if you bear with me while I try and go through 17 it. 18 I would like to apologise to the Committee for the fact 19 that I could not arrive here the last time the Committee met. 20 I was going to be. I was collating evidence which I probably 21 will not even use now. I did not realise it was irrelevant. 22 The fact that I have been convicted of the offence of 23 harassment I cannot dispute. I was told in my initial 24 telephone conversation with the solicitor for the HPC that 25 the fact I had been convicted of a crime does not in itself 34

36 1 automatically mean that I will either be suspended or struck 2 off. I was told your decision depended on individual 3 circumstances. 4 I am going to read from the 2003 report from the HPC. 5 I am merely clarifying it in my own mind. "The Committee's 6 job is not to punish, but to consider whether a registrant is 7 fit to practice. When we say someone is fit to practise, we 8 mean they have skills, knowledge and character and health." 9 It seems to me that because of my conviction, it is my 10 character that is under scrutiny. Also whether or not I am 11 likely to bring my profession and Health Professions Council 12 into dispute by being a loose cannon. 13 In presenting my defence I would like to ask one thing 14 that you put aside any prejudice you might have against the 15 man before you just because I have been found guilty of a 16 crime in a court of law. You are probably going to stop me 17 here, that automatically means I am guilty. It is an 18 understandable prejudice. We would all, as I did, love to 19 assume that we are safe because of an infallible judicial 20 system. Am I straying? 21 THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: I do not think it is going to be helpful. I 22 am not proposing to interrupt you. It is not going to help 23 you if I do that. As you have asked me to say something. My 24 advice to the Committee will be, if they ask for it, that 25 they are not going to be allowed to entertain the notion that 35

37 1 you were not guilty of that offence, with those particulars, 2 of which you were convicted. That is the short point. I am 3 not going to, unless the Committee suggest that I should, 4 constantly interrupt you. They will have that in mind and 5 you have it fully in mind. It is not to shackle you in any 6 way. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: We accept that. 8 MR. LEESON: Neither any system, nor the professions that 9 underpin it, are infallible and it is an irony that fact is 10 borne out by the very existence of this Committee. 11 Again, I am here to try and explain to you my character 12 and I will say one thing, and one thing only, with regards to 13 the conviction. As I have said, no profession or system is 14 infallible. It is possible that I was let down by my 15 solicitor the first time around and that is all I am going to 16 say. 17 I know you are not here to listen to repeats of the 18 trial, and I understand that now. That was a fact that was 19 reaffirmed, although I did not understand the term that the 20 Committee does not have the power to go behind the 21 conviction, but I do now. 22 In explanation, we are looking at my actions during the 23 period of time for which I was convicted, okay? I have been 24 thinking about this over lunch. In explanation can you allow 25 me an analogy. If a person entered a burning building in the 36