News


Social worker who beat his wife up is struck off register

HCPC strikes off social worker who was convicted of assault

Published on 11th September 2017

A social worker who got “very drunk” and beat up his wife has been struck off the Health and Care Professions Council register.

Mr Jeyaram Srinivasan assaulted Person A by beating her Contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and was convicted at Bexley Magistrates’ Court.

The police responded to allegations that Mr Srinivasan had physically assaulted his wife whilst “very drunk” and that he was subsequently arrested. During the incident he grabbed his wife’s hair, covered her mouth and repeatedly hit her on her face, head and shoulders.

The assault only came to an end when she locked herself in another room and called friends. She sustained physical injuries including bruising, swelling and cuts to the inside of her mouth.

Mr Srinivasan, who was employed as a Social Worker in the Assessment and Support Team B, in the Safeguarding Service for the Royal Borough of Greenwich Children’s Services, having been recruited from India, initially denied hitting his wife or dragging her by her hair. However, he admitted putting his hand over his wife’s mouth.  Although he denied causing her any injuries, he accepted that she did not have any injuries prior to the altercation.

Mr Srinivasan was charged with Common Assault by beating. He initially entered a ‘not guilty’ plea, but at Bexley Magistrates’ Court on 28 June 2016, the day of the trial, he changed his plea to ‘guilty’. He was sentenced to an 18 month Community Order with a Programme Requirement (Building Better Relationships) and a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. He was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £85.00 and £300.00 costs.

Mr Srinivasan’s wife stated that she had been physically assaulted on other occasions and therefore the incident that took place on 15 April 2016 was not an isolated or one-off event.

The HCPC Panel recognised that demonstrating remediation following a criminal conviction can be particularly difficult as it is dependent on attitude.

However, the Panel noted that Mr Srinivasan did not plead ‘guilty’ until the day of the trial, despite having made significant admissions during his police interview and the compelling evidence of the injuries that his wife sustained during the assault. The Panel concluded that this indicated a lack of insight. Furthermore, there has been minimal engagement from him during these proceedings and therefore the Panel was unable to assess whether he has developed any insight since the conclusion of the court proceedings and, if so, the scope and level of that insight.

There was also no evidence before the Panel that Mr Srinivasan fully appreciated the consequences of his actions or that he has properly reflected on the impact of his behaviour on his wife and on the profession, which legitimately expects high standards of conduct and behaviour at all times. In the absence of any reflection and a commitment to remediation, the Panel concluded that there was a significant risk of repetition.

The Panel concluded that the only mitigating factor is that no adverse regulatory findings have previously been recorded against Mr Srinivasan. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The physical assault was persistent and took place in a domestic setting where his wife ought to have felt safe from physical harm, and only came to an end when she locked herself in another room;

• Mr Srinivasan’s wife sustained physical injury, including cuts, bruises and swelling;

• Mr Srinivasan has not demonstrated any insight or remorse, nor has he offered any apology for his actions;

• Mr Srinivasan pleaded ‘guilty’ only on the day of trial, despite the presence of overwhelming evidence.

Panel Chair Clive Powell said: “The Panel concluded that there was no evidence that Mr Srinivasan was either willing or able to resolve the underlying attitudinal failure which culminated in the Common Assault conviction. In the absence of any insight, the Panel concluded that Mr Srinivasan’s conduct could not be remedied.”

The Panel ordered for the name of Jeyaram Srinivasan to be struck off the HCPC Register with an interim order to cover the appeal period. Mr Srinivasan was neither present nor represented at the hearing.

 

Share this article:

Back to top
Subscribe to Locum Today
Post a comment

Receive the latest interviews, features and news stories in the Locum Today monthly email newsletter, designed and produced for locum social workers in the UK.

Type in your email address below and click Subscribe.

Leave a comment

Latest articles

10 things you should think about before becoming a locum social worker

10 things you should think about before becoming a locum social worker

Published on 07 January 2016

BASW professional officer Sue Kent and Tricia Gbinigie, business development officer for Independent and Locum Social Workers at BASW provide their Top 10 Tips on things to consider before becoming a locum or independent social worker.

10 Top Tips for successful report writing

10 Top Tips for successful report writing

Published on 10 December 2015

Sue Kent, professional officer at BASW, provides locum social workers with 10 Top Tips for successful report writing.