Mr Christopher D Bridger-Hurford

Preliminary Matters

Application for hearing to be heard in private

2. Mr Foxsmith invited the Panel to conduct all of the hearing in private. He submitted that conducting the hearing in private would protect the Registrant’s right to a private life and further, owing to the nature of the Allegation, it would be impractical to hear parts of the case in private owing to the fact that the Registrant’s health was inextricably linked to the particulars within the Allegation.
3. The Registrant did not object to Mr Foxsmith’s application and stated that he wanted the hearing to be considered in private.
4. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’. The Panel also carefully considered the documentary evidence provided and had regard to the parties’ submissions and the public interest grounds in the case being heard in public.
5. The Panel was satisfied, taking into account the evidence before it, that there was a need to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life and that the matters concerning the Registrant’s health should be considered in private. However, the Panel rejected Mr Foxsmith’s submission that the Registrant’s health was inextricably linked to the Allegation. In the Panel’s view, the conviction aspect of the Allegation could be separated from the health matters. In forming this view, the Panel had regard to the fact that the Registrant’s conviction was already in the public domain, having been heard and reported on during the criminal court process. Consequently, the Panel was not satisfied that there was a public interest justification for hearing the conviction aspects of the case in private.
6. The Panel therefore ordered that the parts of the case relating to the Registrant’s health be heard in private and the matters pertaining to his conviction be considered in public.

Application to amend the Allegation

7. Mr Foxsmith invited the panel to amend Particular 1 of the Allegation to read ‘11 June 2019’ instead of ’26 June 2019’.
8. The proposed Allegation, with amendments, would therefore read as follows:

Proposed Allegation:

As a registered Radiographer (RA30132) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction and/or a health condition. In that:
1. On 11 June 2019 you were convicted at the Croydon Magistrates Court of on 29 October 2018 assaulting Person A by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. You have a physical and/or mental health condition as set out in Schedule A.
3. By reason of your conviction and/or health your fitness to practise is impaired.

9. Mr Foxsmith submitted that the amendment to the Allegation: 
i. would better reflect the facts of the case;
ii. the Registrant had been put on notice of the proposed amendment; and
iii. the amendment was not complex and therefore no prejudice would be caused to the Registrant.

10. The Registrant did not oppose the application to amend the Allegation.
11. The Panel took into account the HCPC’s submissions, skeleton argument and accompanying documentation. The Panel also had regard to the fact that the Registrant did not oppose the application to amend the Allegation and it accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice.
12. The Panel noted that the Rules on the amendment of allegations are silent, but it recognised its inherent power to make amendments to an allegation prior to making any findings of fact.
13. The Panel was content that the HCPC had provided the Registrant with early notice of the proposed amendment to the Allegation. The Panel was also satisfied that the amendment was to correct a typographical error and therefore considered that the amendment amounted to a minor change to the Allegation.
14. Taking the proposed amendment into consideration, the Panel was satisfied that it would not cause any injustice to the Registrant and it did not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation faced. Rather, the amendment provided better particularisation.
15. Consequently, the Panel agreed to the requested amendment as outlined above.

Background

16. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer. He was employed as a Band 7 Radiographer within the MRI Department at The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) from September 2016 to June 2020.
17. On 29 October 2018, the Registrant was driving to work when he was engaged in an altercation with Person A, following a near vehicle collision. During this altercation, Person A alleged that the Registrant assaulted her by pushing and punching her. The Registrant was charged with assault by beating of Person A on 17 January 2019. The Registrant self-referred to the HCPC on 26 February 2019, after having made his first appearance in Court on 19 February 2019.
18. On 11 June 2019, the Registrant was convicted of the offence set out within the allegations above. On 26 June 2019 he was sentenced to 6 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, ordered to pay compensation of £200 and a victim surcharge of £115.
19. The Registrant appealed against his conviction and sentence, with both being dismissed by Croydon Crown Court on 19 November 2020. The Registrant’s original sentence was upheld and he was also ordered to pay a further £1,075 towards prosecution costs.
20. At its meeting on 26 January 2021, the Investigating Committee (‘IC’) of the HCPC determined that there was a case to answer in relation to an allegation of impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise.
21. Following the outcome of the IC, Kingsley Napley LLP was instructed by the HCPC to undertake an investigation in relation to the Allegation detailed above.
22. The HCPC reviewed the case and considered the circumstances suitable for disposal by way of a Voluntary Removal Agreement as the Registrant admits the substance of the Allegation made against him. The Registrant was therefore asked to confirm his position in respect of disposing of the case by means of a voluntary removal.
23. The Registrant confirmed to Kingsley Napley LLP on 04 March 2022 that he wished to proceed with the voluntary removal process and did not contest the Allegation.

Decision on Application

24. Prior to reaching a decision on the application for voluntary removal from the Register, the Panel carefully considered all of the information and evidence before it, including the documents contained within the exhibit bundles, the Registrant’s early retirement and the terms of the Voluntary Removal Agreement. The Panel also took into account the oral submissions made by Mr Foxsmith and the correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC.
25. On the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel considered the criteria for voluntary removal. The Panel noted that Article 11(3) of the 2001 Order and Rule 12(3) of the HCPC Rules, prevent a Registrant from seeking to resign from the Register whilst subject to an Allegation, a Conditions of Practice Order or a Suspension Order. The Panel also took into account the guidance contained within the HCPC Practice Note ‘Disposal of Cases By Consent’, which in respect of Voluntary Removal states that:
‘In cases where the HCPC is satisfied that it would be adequately protecting the public if the Registrant was permitted to resign from the Register it may enter into a Voluntary Removal Agreement allowing the registrant to do so, but on similar terms to those which would apply if the registrant had been struck off.’
26. The Panel noted that a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a ‘case to answer’. The Panel also noted that as the Voluntary Removal Agreement mirrors the terms of a Striking Off Order, it would prevent the Registrant from practising as a Radiographer, using any title associated with that profession and would prevent him from making an application to be re-admitted to the Register within 5 years.
27. Although the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct may not have resulted in a Striking Off Order, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s circumstances met the underlying purpose of removal by consent, which is to avoid unnecessary substantive hearings.
28. The Panel then went on to consider whether acceptance of the Voluntary Removal Agreement would provide adequate public protection and whether it would be detrimental to the wider public interest. The Panel noted that if it was not satisfied that removal would adequately protect the public interest, the proposed voluntary agreement would have to be rejected, which would mean that the case will proceed towards a substantive hearing. The Panel also considered the Registrant’s own interests.
29. The Panel noted that the Registrant has made it clear that he has retired from practice and has no intention of practising as a Radiographer in the future. Furthermore, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant is fully aware of the consequences of voluntary removal and has willingly entered into an agreement with the HCPC.
30. The Panel had regard to the length of the Registrant’s career, which until relatively recently, was unblemished. The Panel also noted the contents of the Registrant’s email, dated 22nd December 2020, and in particular it had regard to the following:
‘I have not practised since September 2019 due to my ill-health.
My last and final working position was at the Royal Marsden Hospital as an MRI Radiographer under the management of Erica Scurr.
On 29th October 2018 I had the misfortune of nearly having a car crash with Person A. Person A subsequently accused me of assault and had used one of her friends (as confirmed by her Facebook account) to stand as a witness. Following the appeal I was convicted of assault by beating.
I am pleading for the investigatory committee to consider this case and my ill health.
I am requesting to be removed and struck off the HCPC register as I am no longer fit to practice. I would like to thank the HCPC for its continued support and guidance over the last 32 years.’
31. Based on the documentary evidence and the full admissions made by the Registrant, the Panel was satisfied that the particulars of the Allegation were capable of being found proved on the balance of probabilities. The Panel took into account the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conduct and was satisfied that these factors would have supported a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise. The Panel was also of the view that this case raises concerns in regards to the wider public interest. In the Panel’s view, a member of the public would have been shocked to learn of the Registrant’s behaviour.
32. In considering whether removal of the Registrant’s name from the Register was proportionate, the Panel noted that his conduct had the potential to damage the reputation of the profession and was likely to undermine public trust and confidence in the profession. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that approval of the proposed Voluntary Removal Agreement is both proportionate and appropriate. The Panel also determined that there is a legitimate public interest in avoiding a substantive hearing where full admissions have been made as to the facts and grounds and where the Registrant has expressed a clear desire to be removed from the Register.
33. Therefore, the Panel consented to the Voluntary Removal Agreement and was satisfied that the Allegation should be withdrawn.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mr Christopher D Bridger-Hurford from the Register with immediate effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Christopher D Bridger-Hurford