A SCOTS carer is to be struck off the register after being discovered responsible of embezzling almost £35,000 from a service consumer.

Tracey McEnemy was initially given a brief suspension earlier this month after being convicted of the crime at Hamilton Sheriff Courtroom final August, however is presently inside her enchantment interval.

McEnemy was employed as a help employee in a care at residence service when she was discovered to have embezzled an eye-watering £34,893 from a service consumer between February 2019 and September 2020.

In her defence, McEnemy, from Bathgate, West Lothian, claimed that the actions have been a results of a relationship with the service consumer, merely known as AA.

She claimed AA had been within the behavior of often transferring her cash for enterprise funds, had been conscious of the embezzlement and had already devised a compensation plan for her.

Regardless of this, McEnemy’s conviction led to a listening to of care watchdog the Scottish Social Providers Council (SSSC), whose panel agreed that the carer’s health to practise was impaired.

The SSSC’s report said: “The allegation towards you on the listening to was as follows:

“On 23 August 2022, you have been convicted at Hamilton Sheriff Courtroom of embezzlement, particularly:

“Between 1 February 2019 and 30 September 2020, each dates inclusive, at [information redacted], and elsewhere, you probably did whereas employed as a carer of AA, embezzle £34,893.04 from them.”

They continued: “The panel subsequent thought-about whether or not, in all of the circumstances, your health to practise is impaired because of the conviction.

“It bore in thoughts that it needed to take into account whether or not your health to practise is presently impaired.

“It famous the necessity to keep in mind public safety, the broader public curiosity, whether or not the misconduct was simply remediable, whether or not it had been remedied, whether or not it was more likely to recur, and whether or not you had demonstrated any perception.

“It famous the necessity to take into account present reasonably than previous impairment.

“It famous specifically the necessity to keep confidence within the career, and the necessity to declare and uphold correct requirements in order to take care of public confidence in social companies.

“These final factors have been issues that it was correct to keep in mind in coming to a call on whether or not your health to practise is impaired.”

The panel agreed that McMenemy confirmed perception into her convictions, however discovered it incompatible with the seriousness of her behaviour.

They divulged: “The panel thought-about that you just had clearly demonstrated some perception into the results of your behaviour.

“You had taken steps to hunt help from [organisations redacted] which you thought-about had been efficient, though the panel famous that your engagement with these our bodies occurred solely after a [Temporary Suspension Order] had been positioned in your registration.

“You clearly understood the issues the general public have been more likely to have about your behaviour and conviction.

“Nevertheless, your perception didn’t seem to the Panel to increase to considering in any depth about how you’ll take care of nerve-racking conditions in future, or how you’ll keep away from falling into comparable patterns of behaviour.

“Your perception and the steps taken in consequence, appeared to the panel to be reactive reasonably than proactive.

“The panel accepted the optimistic nature of your perception however thought-about that dishonest behaviour consisting of a severe breach of belief, can be very troublesome to counteract, and would require an extended interval of optimistic behaviour to treatment.”

The panel agreed {that a} elimination from the register along with a brief suspension order was essentially the most appropriate sanction.

They said: “The panel didn’t take into account that it was acceptable to make no order. The behaviour was extraordinarily severe, and the case was not so distinctive as to warrant no motion.

“A warning alone was not acceptable. This was not a case on the lowest finish of the dimensions. It was one during which extra severe motion is likely to be acceptable.

“The panel didn’t take into account that it was acceptable that you may be allowed to return to work in care with out restriction.

“A warning wouldn’t serve to handle public safety issues in any means and wouldn’t deal with the general public curiosity elements of the case.”

The short-term suspension order got here into impact on 15 August however is due to get replaced by a elimination order.