Carehomeworkerstruck off after headlock attack
A PRIVATE care home worker who put his girlfriend’s dad in a headlock has been struck off.
Joseph Smyth was removed from the social care register after failing to tell watchdogs he had two criminal convictions.
Smyth was fined and ordered to do unpaid work by Sheriff Pettigrew at Paisley Sheriff Court in February, last year, after being convicted of assault and behaving in a threatening manner.
He is reported to have got into an argument with his girlfriend, and when her dad stepped in to help he lashed out, put him in a headlock and pulled him on to the floor.
The man had an injured shoulder and damaged knee as a result of the attack.
Elderslie man Smyth also lost his job as a care assistant at one of BUPA’s nursing homes for adults immediately after his conviction.
Now the Scottish Social Services Council has ruled he should be struck off the register for social workers completely after BUPA notified them of his criminal history.
The SSSC panel said Smyth had made no attempt to engage with them in the hearing process, and as a result they relied on police statements, BUPA’s investigation documents and an employer referral form during the hearing.
In a written decision, the panel said: “There was evidence that you had been charged with two offences, that you were aware that you ought to inform the SSSC of these, and nothing to suggest that you had done so.
“If it were not for your former employer referring the matter to the SSSC, these matters may have remained undisclosed.
“There was no evidence that you had informed the SSSC that you had been dismissed from your post of Care Assistant.”
“It could be seen from the documentary evidence obtained from Bupa that your employer had expressly advised you that you ought to inform the SSSC that you had been charged and sentenced by the Court of Law.”
Smyth had worked as a care assistant for more than four years, having first started his job in June 2011.
During the hearing, it was decided Smyth’s actions were “an abuse of trust” which was “likely to be repeated”.
The panel also heard that he had “acted violently” and had damaged the reputation of the profession through his behaviour.
They ruled: “The conduct in question was not easily remediable, it had not been remedied and finally that it was likely to be repeated.
“You had not engaged with the process. You had acted violently and also presented a picture of someone how was not open and honest.
“In relation to the question of public interest, having regard to the nature of the convictions and your disregard for your regulator, the public would consider the reputation of the profession damaged.”