Phillip F Hopkins

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel noted that the Registrant was not present and was not represented at this hearing.

2. Ms Yeghikian on behalf of the HCPC submitted that there has been good service of the relevant Notices of this review hearing and that the Panel should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Decisions of the Panel

3. The Panel is aware of the provisions of Rule 6(2) and Rule 11 of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the relevant Rules’).

4. The Panel is aware that the existing Suspension Order will expire on 12 December 2025.

5. The Panel has seen the 2 Notices sent by the HCPC to the Registrant at his registered email address. The first is dated 3 November 2025 and notifies the Registrant of a hearing scheduled to take place on 01 December 2025. The second is dated 02 December 2025 and notifies the Registrant of the hearing scheduled to take place today. The Panel noted that in respect of both these Notices there was an electronic message confirming the delivery of the Notice. The Panel notes that neither of these Notices informs the Registrant that a “Striking Off Order” was a potential outcome of this review hearing. However, this potential outcome was mentioned in an email dated 3 November 2025 with regard to the hearing then scheduled for 01 December 2025.

6. The Panel has heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor

7. The Panel concluded that the Notice dated 3 November 2025 was an effective Notice in that it did comply with the time provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Rules. However, the Panel understands that on 01 December 2025, the review hearing could not proceed because there was no Legal Assessor in attendance. In substance, the hearing on 01 December was adjourned to the next available date, which is today (04 December 2025). The Notice dated 02 December 2025 gave the Registrant notice of the date of the adjourned hearing. Because of the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, the two Notices taken together provided sufficient notice of today’s review hearing. In making this decision, the Panel had regard to Article 6(2) and specifically the 28-day period of notice. However, given the satisfactory Notice initially for 1 December 2025 and the overriding public interest in seeing to this review before the Order expires (on 12 December 2025), the Panel concluded that service has been effected.

8. The Panel, having taken and having accepted the further advice of the Legal Assessor, determined that this review hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant. Its reasons include the following:

a. The Registrant is not present and is not represented at this hearing.

b. The existing Suspension Order expires on 12 December 2025. It is therefore in the public interest and in the interests of the Registrant that it should be reviewed today.

c. The Registrant has not responded to either of the 2 Notices mentioned above.

d. The Registrant has not responded to an email dated 21 November 2025 from the HCPC asking if he intended to attend the hearing then scheduled for 01 December 2025. Moreover, the Registrant did not respond to an email from the HCPC dated 03 November 2025, which gave the Registrant further information as regards the hearing scheduled for 01 December 2025. The Panel also understands that the Hearings Officer sent the Registrant an email following the Notice dated 02 December 2025. This did not attract any response from the Registrant

e. The Registrant has not applied for an adjournment.

f. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented at the first review hearing conducted on 05 June 2025.

g. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented at the substantive hearing conducted between 13 – 15 May 2024.

h. The Registrant did not follow up on a telephone conversation that he had with the HCPC on 29 May 2025, which is referred to below.

i. In all the circumstances it is reasonable to conclude that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to attend this hearing.

Proceeding partly in private

9. Ms Yeghikian submitted that this hearing should proceed partly in private so as to ensure that all references to the health of the Registrant should remain confidential.

10. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that all references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private, but that otherwise, this is a public hearing. The Panel noted that this determination accords with those of the Substantive Panel in May 2024 and also of that of the First Review Panel on 5 June 2025. The determination of the Panel will be redacted accordingly.

Background (taken from the determination of the First Review Panel)

11. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer who was employed by Alliance Medical Limited (‘Alliance’) from 2018.

12. On 24 February 2022, the Registrant was working for Alliance at a mobile scanning unit at the Durham Diagnostic Treatment Centre (‘DDTC’). During his lunch break the Registrant purchased and drank from a bottle of wine before returning to the DDTC and resuming work. His colleagues noted a change in his behaviour through the afternoon and suggested that he go home. When the Registrant left the DDTC, he dropped the bottle of wine, which smashed on the ground.

13. The Registrant spoke with his manager on 24 February 2022 and again on 25 February 2022, when he admitted buying and consuming alcohol before returning to work at the DDTC. He was suspended [redacted].

14. On 04 March 2022 the Registrant notified the HCPC of the incident and his suspension.

15. A disciplinary investigation was commenced by Alliance which resulted in a disciplinary hearing being conducted on 07 April 2022. The outcome of the hearing was that the Registrant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect. Alliance notified the HCPC of its concerns about the Registrant via a referral dated 09 May 2022.

16. The Registrant provided the HCPC with consent to access his medical records on 08 June 2022. He was asked to provide an updated consent form in July 2023 and confirmed he would do so via an email dated 19 July 2023 but did not. The HCPC sought information in respect of the Registrant’s medical history from his GP, [redacted] between June 2022 and November 2023. It secured:

a. A Health reference form received by the HCPC on 04 January 2023 [redacted].

b. [Redacted].

c. [Redacted].

17. On 03 April 2023, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that the Registrant did have a case to answer and confirmed the allegation as set out above, notice of which was sent to the Registrant on 12 April 2023.

Hearing before the Substantive Panel in May 2024

18. On 13 –15 May 2024 a substantive hearing panel heard the Allegation in the absence of the Registrant. The panel found factual Particulars 1 and 3 of the Allegation proved. The panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components and imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

Hearing before the First Review Panel on 5 June 2025

19. On 5 June 2025 the First Review Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired and imposed a further six-month Suspension Order. Its reasons included those set out below. The First Review Panel also gave guidance as to what might assist subsequent review panels. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the determination of the First Review Panel have been retained, but are shown in brackets.

Decision on Impairment

(21) In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the documentary evidence, and the submissions of Mr Micklewright [for the HCPC].

(22) The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to unrestricted practice and considered the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel must exercise its own independent judgement with regard to impairment, bearing in mind that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to show that he has addressed his impairment. Only if impairment remained, would the Panel then go on to consider what sanction, if any to impose.

(23) The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. The Panel took into account all of the material and evidence before it. There has been no information submitted by the Registrant. The Panel noted that he did not attend the last hearing, and while the previous panel had suggested that this Panel would be assisted by a number of documents to be submitted by the Registrant, the Registrant had not submitted any information on his behalf. As such, the Panel took the view that there had been no material change since the last hearing. There is no information to suggest what the Registrant’s level of insight is, any evidence of steps he has taken to address his health or personal issues, any written reflection, or steps he had taken to keep his knowledge and skills up to date. In attending work under the influence of alcohol he put patients at an unwarranted risk of harm and also breached fundamental tenets of the profession and brought the profession into disrepute. It was a serious breach of standards and undermined confidence in him and the profession. In the circumstances, in the absence of any evidence from the Registrant, there remained a real risk of repetition of the misconduct. As such, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the personal component.

(24) Due to the ongoing risk of repetition and the risk to patients, the Panel found that the need to uphold standards and confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

(25) The Panel approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It was aware that the purpose of sanction is to protect the public and uphold the public interest, and not to punish. It exercised the principle of proportionality, being mindful that the least restrictive sanction necessary and sufficient to address the concerns and risks, and no more, should be imposed. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the Sanctions Guidance.

(26) The Panel first considered whether to take no action. It concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and would provide no restriction on the Registrant’s practice which would be needed to protect the public. Nor would it be sufficient to address the public interest concerns in the case. A Caution Order would be insufficient for the same reasons, bearing in mind the level of seriousness of the misconduct and the real risk of repetition.

(27) The Panel next considered conditions of practice. However, it had no indication that the Registrant would be willing to comply with conditions. In addition, this was not a case where the misconduct related to clinical concerns, which may be addressed by verifiable conditions targeting deficits in professional performance. Rather, this case involved attending work while under the influence of alcohol. The Panel therefore did not consider that it could formulate workable conditions. Further, this was a serious case, and as a result of the limited insight and real risk of repetition, any conditions would be insufficient to manage the risk. As such no conditions could be formulated to protect the public and be sufficient to uphold the public interest.

(28) The Panel next considered Suspension and decided that in light of the limited insight shown thus far and the real risk of repetition, and as well as the seriousness of the misconduct, a period of Suspension would be appropriate. The Panel was satisfied that no lesser sanction than Suspension would be necessary and proportionate to safeguard against the risk in this case. In addition, a period of Suspension would allow the Registrant the opportunity to engage with the regulatory process and demonstrate his insight into, and remediation of, the misconduct found proved.

(29) The Panel determined that a period of six months was proportionate and necessary to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and mark it for the purposes of addressing the public interest in this case, as well as affording public protection. It would also allow the Registrant time to prepare any evidence upon which he seeks to rely.

(30) The Panel did consider a Striking Off order, taking into account the Registrant’s lack of engagement during the substantive hearing and this hearing, and the unresolved issues and risk that remains. However, it took into account his expressed wish to engage and decided that in light of that expression, albeit only made few days before today’s hearing, a Striking Off Order would be disproportionate at this time.

(31) In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the impact this decision will have on the Registrant’s right to practice as well as the potential financial and reputational impact, but decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed his interests in this respect.

(32). The Panel therefore decided to impose a six-month period of Suspension which will take effect on the expiry of the current order, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

(33) The Panel also decided that a future reviewing panel may be greatly assisted if the Registrant:

a. engages fully in the regulatory proceedings in future;

b. attends future hearings;

c. provides the following information in advance of the review hearing:

i. detailed written reflective piece focusing on:

1. his insight of, and reflection on, the standards of proficiency for radiographers and the standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

2. The impact of his conduct upon the public generally, his patients and his colleagues;

3. The risks posed by working while under the influence of alcohol.

ii. information on his current health, supported by medical evidence where appropriate, which sets out the nature and extent of any ill-health as well as the treatment and prognosis;

iii. information as to his personal circumstances insofar as this impacts upon his professional practice;

iv. evidence of relevant training undertaken in contemplation of a return to the profession.

Hearing on 04 December 2025 before the Second Review Panel

Submissions on behalf of the HCPC

20. Ms Yeghikian informed the Panel that on 29 May 2025 there was a telephone conversation with the Registrant in which the Registrant stated that he had sorted out his personal and health issues; that he was eager to return to the register, to remediate his past failings and to demonstrate to the Panel that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired. The Registrant indicated that he was able to provide evidence of the above. Ms Yeghikian told the Panel that this was the last communication with the HCPC.

21. Ms Yeghikian submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired on both the personal and the public components: She invited the Panel to make “a Striking Off Order” In summary her reasons included the following:

a. there is no substantive evidence from the Registrant to demonstrate insight and remediation, for example to show that he has addressed his health and personal issues.

b. Since the telephone conversation of 29 May 2025 the Registrant has not engaged with either the HCPC or this review hearing and has not sought to provide the information identified by the First Review Panel as being of possible assistance to a subsequent review panel.

c. The risk of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct remained high, and his fitness to practise remained impaired.

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant

22. The Panel has not received any submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.

Decisions of the Second Review Panel made on 04 December 2025

23. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has taken into account the submissions of Ms Yeghikian. It has read and considered all the documents placed before it. It has also taken into account the determinations of the Substantive Panel and those of the First Review Panel. The Panel has also read and applied the Practice Note entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders” published by the HCPTS in August 2025. It has also taken into account the Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC. It noted the telephone conversation with the Registrant on 29 May 2025.

24. The Panel is aware that it has all the powers that are set out in Article 30 [1] of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 (The Order) and which are set out in the email sent to the Registrant giving notice of this hearing.

25. The Panel is aware that the process under Article 30 [1] of the Order is one of review and not one of appeal and that its function is to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired: if so, whether the Suspension Order under review remains appropriate and proportionate or should be varied or replaced by some other order.

Decision of the Panel on Impairment

26. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public component. There has been no material change in the factual position since the hearing before the First Review Panel on 5 June 2025. The Registrant has not complied with any of the recommendations of the First Review Panel. Furthermore, there is no material before it that would enable the Panel to determine that the Registrant has addressed, or attempted to address, the failings that previous panels identified. In addition to this, there is no evidence of any insight and accordingly, the risk of repetition remains. The personal component is therefore engaged. With regards to the public component, the Panel is of the view that, a member of the public, being aware of the previous findings and the Registrant’s subsequent lack of engagement and insight, would expect a finding of impairment. Consequently, confidence in the regulator and profession would be severely undermined. The public component is therefore engaged.

Decision on Sanction

27. The Panel approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It was aware that the purpose of sanction is to protect the public and uphold the public interest, and not to punish a Registrant. It exercised the principle of proportionality, being mindful that the least restrictive sanction necessary and sufficient to address the concerns and risks, and no more, should be imposed. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

28. The Panel first considered whether to take no action. It concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and would provide no restriction on the Registrant’s practice which would be needed to protect the public. Nor would it be sufficient to address the public interest concerns in the case. A Caution Order would be insufficient for the same reasons, bearing in mind the level of seriousness of the misconduct and the real risk of repetition.

29. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. However, it has received no indication that the Registrant would be willing to comply with conditions. In this context the Panel noted that, save for the telephone conversation of 29 May 2025, the Registrant has not engaged with the regulatory process. He has not sought to comply with the suggestions of the First Review Panel. In addition, this was not a case where the misconduct related to clinical concerns, which may be addressed by verifiable conditions, targeting deficits in professional performance. Rather, this case involved attending work while under the influence of alcohol. The Panel therefore did not consider that it could formulate workable conditions. Further, this was a serious case, and as a result of the limited insight and real risk of repetition, any conditions would be insufficient to manage the risk. As such, no conditions could be formulated to protect the public and be sufficient to uphold the public interest.

30. The Panel next considered a further period of Suspension. However, the Panel concluded that a further period of suspension is no longer appropriate and should now be replaced by a Striking Off Order. Its reasons include the following:

a. Save for the telephone conversation of 29 May 2025, the Registrant has not engaged with the regulatory process or with this review hearing.

b. The Registrant has not complied with the suggestions made by the previous panels, in particular that of the First Review Panel, as to what might assist a subsequent reviewing panel.

c. The Registrant has not produced any evidence that he has addressed or resolved any of the failings that led to a finding of misconduct. Furthermore, there is no evidence of insight or remediation. The risk of repetition is considerable.

d. The Registrant’s misconduct as established by the Substantive Panel was very serious and posed a very serious risk to service users.

e. A Striking Off Order is fully in accord with the guidance contained within the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel had particular regard to paragraph 131 and concluded that the Registrant, through his lack of engagement in this process, had failed to demonstrate any insight and was unwilling to resolve matters.

f. In all the circumstances the Panel concludes that there is no realistic prospect of the Registrant addressing and remediating his misconduct. A further period of suspension is therefore not in the public interest.

31. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the impact that this decision will have on the Registrant’s ability to practise as well as to its potential financial and reputational impact on him. However, the Panel has decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this respect.

32. The Panel is aware that neither of the notices dated 03 November 2025 and 02 December 2025 made specific reference to the fact that a “Striking Off Order” was available to the Panel. It noted the decision in the case of LM v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2016] CSIH 86. However, the Panel noted that the email from the HCPC dated 03 November 2025 made specific reference to the fact that a Striking Off Order was available to the Panel. The Panel also noted that the determinations of both the previous panels made specific reference to the availability of a Striking Off Order but those panels concluded that at that time such an Order was then, for the reasons stated, disproportionate. In all the circumstances, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant would have been aware that making a Striking Off Order is a sanction available to the Panel. In the circumstances and notwithstanding that the Notices dated 03 November 2025 and 02 December 2025 made no reference to a Striking Off Order, such an outcome is not unfair to the Registrant.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Phillip F Hopkins from the register with effect from 12 December 2025.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Phillip F Hopkins