Rosario Canade

Admissions

1.          The Registrant admitted the factual particulars of 1 set out above.

2.          The Panel received and accepted legal advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Admissions’ which states ‘an admission of a fact is sufficient to prove that fact’. The Panel was advised that it can find a fact proved by virtue of that admission without receiving further evidence, however it should be satisfied that the admission is unequivocal, the Registrant fully understands what the allegation is and the implications of admitting it. The Panel was aware of the importance of it being provided with all relevant information to enable it to understand the context and seriousness of the case, so that even when facts are admitted, it can make informed decisions regarding impairment and sanction, if appropriate.

3.          The Panel considered the Certificate of Conviction as proof of the fact of the conviction. The Panel was satisfied that the factual particular of the allegation was admitted unequivocally and accordingly was found proven.

Background

4.          The Registrant is a HCPC registered Practitioner Psychologist.

5.          On 28 August 2024, the Registrant was referred to the HCPC by his employers, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). In the referral, it was indicated that the Registrant had been charged with three criminal offences and had been suspended from duty with the Trust.

6.          On 30 September 2024, the Registrant informed the HCPC that he had been sentenced for two of the offences on 30 September 2024 at Wood Green Crown Court.

7.          The HCPC obtained a Certificate of Conviction from Wood Green Crown Court dated 30 December 2024 which shows that on 29 July 2024 the Registrant pleaded guilty to the following offences:-

a) Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child;

b) Adult attempt to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming.

8.          The Registrant was sentenced on 30 September 2024 to a total of 12 months imprisonment suspended for a period of 18 months with requirements to undertake 35 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days, the Horizon programme, and 150 hours of unpaid work. The Registrant was also ordered to pay costs and a surcharge and was made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) for a period of 10 years.

9.          The HCPC obtained a copy of the Judge’s sentencing remarks.

10.       A panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee determined that there was a ‘case to answer’ in relation to the allegation on 28 March 2025. The Notice of Allegation was sent to the Registrant by letter dated 03 April 2025.

11.       In the response to the Allegation dated 22 April 2025, the Registrant admitted the factual particulars of the Allegation.

Evidence

12.       The HCPC did not call any live evidence and relied upon the documentation contained within the bundle of 116 pages. The Panel was referred specifically to the Certificate of Conviction dated 30 December 2024.

13.       The Panel received written submissions from Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC and was aware that the Registrant had admitted the factual particulars of the Allegation. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
Decision on Facts and Grounds

14.       The Panel was aware that the standard of proof in deciding whether the facts are proved is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.  In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved.

15.       The Panel considered sequentially:
·       whether the facts set out in the Allegation are proved;

·       whether those facts amount to the ‘statutory ground’ alleged – conviction.

16.       The Panel was aware that Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: “a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence,”.

17.       The Panel referred to the Certificate of Conviction from Wood Green Crown Court dated 30 December 2024 and noted that the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Panel Rules 2003 10(d) provide:-
“where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based;”

18.       The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the fact of the conviction was found proven due to the admission of the Registrant and the Certificate of Conviction, accordingly the ground of conviction was also satisfied.

Decision on Impairment

19.       The Panel received written submissions dated 01 December 2025 from Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC on the issue of impairment. Ms Evans submitted that the Registrant had breached Standard 9 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics by his conduct. Standard 9 requires a registrant to be honest and trustworthy in their personal and professional behaviour and states ‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession’.

20.       It was submitted that Practitioner Psychologists occupy a position of trust, and that patients and their families must be able to trust them. To justify that trust, it was submitted that Practitioner Psychologists must maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct. Ms Evans invited the Panel to consider that to be convicted of offences of an adult attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and attempting to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming, damages the reputation of the profession and may cause the public to lose trust and confidence in Practitioner Psychologists.

21.       Ms Evans further submitted that the Registrant had failed to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct. In particular, that he failed to be considerate to the reputation of Psychologists when he attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child and attempted to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming and was convicted of the criminal charges.

22.       Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Registrant had, in all the circumstances of this case, departed from good professional practice.

23.       Ms Evans referred the Panel to the questions posed by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Report (as endorsed in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin)) as being helpful. Those questions are :
 

1.     has [the Registrant] in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act as so to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

2.     has [the Registrant] in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or

3.     has [the Registrant] in the past committed a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession and/or is liable to do so in the future.

4.     has [the Registrant] in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.

24.       It was submitted that in this case points 1-3 can be answered in the affirmative in respect of past conduct.

25.       Ms Evans identified that the Registrant was employed to provide Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to children, young people, their families and carers.  The role contributed to the delivery of child and adolescent mental health services to children and adolescents, and part of the Registrant’s job description details that their role also included outreach CAMHS input at schools and at service user’s homes. The Registrant was also expected to attend child protection conferences and child in need meetings. It was submitted that the Registrant’s actions which led to his conviction could have put service users or future service users in their care at risk of harm.

26.       Further, Ms Evans submitted that the Registrant had not conducted himself in a manner that justifies the public’s trust and confidence, a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession. The HCPC identify that the Registrant has been unable to explain any steps taken to ensure his actions are not repeated in the future should he be in the same position again.

27.       As to the risk of repetition, Ms Evans highlighted that the Registrant, when meeting with the Probation Services, detailed that he committed the offences when under stress from his work environment. He cited the increasing long-term pressure he faced in his employment to explain his actions.

28.       Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC submitted that a risk of repetition remains and the Registrant’s behavior falls far below that expected of a registered health profession. It was also submitted that a finding of current impairment is required in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards.

29.       The Panel heard from the Registrant on the issue of impairment. The Registrant acknowledged that his behaviour had brought the profession into disrepute and had fallen short of the standards that would be expected. He stated that he did not seek to excuse his conduct, had accepted his punishment and regretted his actions.

30.       The Registrant advised that his conduct had taken place outside the workplace and that he had had no fitness to practise concerns in over 10 years of practice and was always professional.

31.       The Registrant sought to persuade the Panel that he was not a risk of harm as he had not been remanded into custody in relation to the criminal proceedings and had not been sent to custody as part of his sentence. He highlighted the Probation report which indicated that he was at a low risk of re-offending and advised that the Sexual Harm Prevention Order only prohibited his contact with under 18-year-olds.

32.       The Registrant pointed out that he had taken steps of his own initiative to address the conduct to reduce the risk of repetition and referred to the document within the bundle addressed to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to evidence this. The Registrant pointed out that he had completed the unpaid work hours and the Horizon programme part of his suspended sentence order.

33.       The Registrant indicated that the behaviour had had a detrimental impact on his life, personally, professionally and financially. The Registrant also referred to the time lapse since the offending took place.

34.       The Panel received and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public components and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the current time.

35.       In considering the personal component, the Panel considered that the behaviour may be remediable, although sexually motivated behaviour can be said to be attitudinal in nature, and therefore more difficult to remediate. The Panel noted the steps taken by the Registrant in complying with his criminal sentence and in undertaking the Safer Lives Programmes and psychotherapy independently.

36.       The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant appeared to show remorse for his actions. However, it was concerned by some of his comments in which he appeared frustrated by the process, in that he questioned how long it would be before he was deemed to no longer pose a risk. Additionally, the Registrant did not consider his suspended sentence to be a custodial sentence, when clearly it is.

37.       Whilst the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has demonstrated some insight, it was not satisfied that his insight was fully developed at this time. The Registrant had attended some courses and had undertaken counselling, but he had failed to reflect on how his learning had changed his behaviours and actions so as to avoid repetition.

38.       The Panel was aware that the behaviour had occurred outside of the workplace, however, it noted the pre-sentence report which stated:-
‘Given the nature of the offence, [the Registrant] has been assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm towards children, predominantly male ones. It appears that the risk is targeted towards teenage boys, however, given the difficulties in understanding the triggers to [the Registrant’s] offending, this is difficult to accurately assess. The risk is of serious psychological harm caused through the commission of further like offences. There is also a potential for physical harm to be caused in the commission of contact sexual offences.
[The Registrant] has not been assessed as posing an imminent risk of serious harm towards members of the public, known adults, staff or prisoners at this time’.

39.       The Panel also noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks in which he alluded to the fact that the Registrant had met a child following grooming and had intended to engage in penetrative sexual activity with a minor. This behaviour has the potential to cause serious physical, emotional and psychological harm to a minor if undertaken.

40.       The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public, and whilst the conduct was not directed towards a service user, the Registrant was engaged in a professional capacity with CAMHS where he engaged with troubled, vulnerable minors. The conviction involved behaviour of a predatory sexual nature towards a child. The Panel’s duty is to protect the public from harm and the risk of harm, and service users are members of the public.  

41.       The Panel found that, due to the lack of fully developed insight and remediation, it could not rule out the risk of repetition which could cause real harm to service users, some of whom may be vulnerable.

42.       The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant was currently impaired.

43.       The Panel next considered the public component and looked at the ‘critically important public policy issues’.

44.       The Panel acknowledged the need to protect service users and colleagues and concluded that due to the lack of fully developed insight by the Registrant there is a risk of repetition which places members of the public at risk of harm.

45.       The Panel was of the view that the nature and seriousness of the convictions fell far short of what would be expected of a healthcare professional. The factual particular admitted and found proved is sufficiently serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel finds that the conviction is so serious that the public interest demands a finding of impairment. The Registrant was given a substantial custodial sentence of 12 months, and a significant Sexual Harm Prevention Order of 10 years to protect the public from risk of harm.

46.       The Panel found that the Registrant was in breach of standard 9.1 of the Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics 2016. This is a fundamental tenet of the profession, which brings the profession into disrepute.

47.       The Panel was satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

48.       The Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components.
 
Decision on Sanction

49.       Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC made representations on sanction with reference to the Sanctions Policy and confirmed that the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of sanction and leave this as a matter of judgment for the Panel.

50.       Ms Evans drew the Panel’s attention to various matters which the HCPC consider to be the aggravating and mitigating features in this case.

51.       The Registrant did not make any representations on sanction. He confirmed when asked that he had been barred by the DBS from working in any regulated activity with children and vulnerable adults.

52.       The Panel was referred to the Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the primary purpose of the sanction was to protect the public and that they should give appropriate weight to the wider public interest which includes the deterrent effect to other registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

53.       The Panel adopted the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction and was mindful that a sanction should never be imposed with the intention of punishing a registrant against whom a finding has been made. Rather, although a sanction might have a punitive effect, it should only be imposed if required to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards.

54.       The Panel considered the sanctions available in ascending order of gravity until one that sufficiently addressed the sanction aims previously identified was reached. The Panel was aware that it must consider the next more severe sanction to the one identified in order to ensure that it sufficiently addresses the aims of a sanction and be satisfied that it is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

55.       The Panel reminded itself of the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the public interest and was mindful that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public from harm and to maintain public confidence in both the profession and in the regulator. The Panel recognised that sanctions can be punitive in character and effect.

56.       The Panel referred itself to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-
·       The lack of any previous convictions or any fitness to practise / regulatory concerns;
·       The Registrant’s engagement with the criminal and regulatory processes;
·       The admissions made by the Registrant who has taken full responsibility for his actions;
·       The Registrant accessed services to address his behaviour, and attended therapy and courses which were both mandated and voluntary;
·       The Registrant has demonstrated a degree of insight and apologised for his actions;
·       The Registrant has provided a reflective statement;
·       The positive testimonials – although the Panel noted that these were undated, and it was unclear if the people writing them were aware of the allegation against the Registrant;
·       The Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) tool, undertaken as part of the pre-sentence report, assessed the Registrant as posing a low risk of committing further offences.

57.       The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-
·       The Registrant has breached fundamental tenets of the profession to act with decency, honesty and integrity, which may impact on service user engagement and public confidence in the profession;
·       The limited insight shown – the Registrant has failed to acknowledge the impact of his actions on the potential victim;
·       The lack of understanding as to why he committed the offences;
·       The potential for significant physical, emotional and psychological harm being caused to a vulnerable child had the offences been carried out;
·       The potential for harm caused to the service users under the care of the Registrant at the time he committed the offences, due to a change in the professional working with them, at a time when the service users may have been vulnerable;
·       Predatory behaviour in grooming a vulnerable child for sexual purposes when there was a significant age gap, including an element of sexual misconduct and an attempt to engage in sexual abuse of a child;
·       Criminal convictions for serious sexual offences against children.

58.       The Panel found the Allegation to be very serious in nature and came under several categories on the Sanctions Policy within the ‘Serious Cases’ section.

59.       The Panel noted paragraph 79 which states:-
‘Sexual abuse of children involves forcing or persuading them to take part in sexual activities and includes both physical contact and online activity…
Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice’.

60.       The Panel further noted paragraph 82 which states:-
‘Where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the panel should not allow the registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed’.
And paragraph 85 which states:-
‘Although inclusion on the sex offenders’ database is not a punishment, it does serve to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. A panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database’.

61.       The Panel noted the following contained within the Probation Service pre-sentence report:-
‘Additionally, [the Registrant’s] actions have resulting in far-reaching consequences. [The Registrant] was a Clinical Psychologist, working for Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). He had patients, who he had been working with for some considerable time. Their therapy with [the Registrant] had to be immediate [sic] terminated, and whilst there is no question that he was inappropriate within his role, he had unlimited access to children and adolescents. He has caused irrefutable damage to the NHS and those he worked with as their course of therapy had to be immediately re-evaluated and therapist changed. [The Registrant] appeared to express genuine remorse for the impact of his behaviour.
[The Registrant] is of previous good character, which will serve to mitigate. However, the nature of his profession may serve to aggravate matters. Whilst it does not appear that he used his employment to access children for his own sexual gratification, he works in the height of safeguarding, and is expected to uphold the safety of all children at all times. His actions potentially placed a child at serious risk of harm. The values he holds within his profession were completely disregarded in the course of his offending’.

62.       The Panel was referred to the case of Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 in which Newman J stated that, as a general principle, where a Registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence they should not be permitted to resume practice until satisfactory completion of a criminal sentence.

63.       In light of the above, the Panel did not feel that this matter could be concluded with either mediation, no order or a caution. They did not consider these to be appropriate or adequate sanctions due to the serious nature of the Allegation, and the requirement to protect the public from harm and ensure that confidence in the regulatory process is maintained. The Panel concluded that some restriction on the Registrant’s practice was necessary to address the serious nature of the Allegation.

64.       The Panel next considered a conditions of practice order. Due to the lack of fully developed insight, insufficient evidence of remediation and the concerns not being clinical in nature, the Panel could not be satisfied that any conditions would be workable. Nor did it consider that a conditions of practice order would be sufficient to address the serious nature of the Allegation or adequately address the wider public interest concerns.

65.       Further, the Panel considered paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which states, ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving…abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct, sexual abuse of children and criminal convictions for serious offences’.

66.       The Panel noted the restrictions imposed by the DBS and the SHPO and found that due to the attitudinal and sexually motivated conduct there are no conditions they could impose to address the concerns which are workable, appropriate or proportionate. The Allegation is too serious to be concluded in this way.

67.       The Panel determined that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate or workable and would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulator.

68.       The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Sanctions Policy outlines that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where:-
·       ‘the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
·       the registrant has insight;
·       the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
·       there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings’.

69.       The Panel found that there had been a serious breach of the standards, while the Registrant has expressed some remorse and insight into his behaviour, this is not fully developed at this time. The Panel further noted the Probation Service assessment that the Registrant poses ‘a medium risk of committing a [sic] further serious offences’ on the Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) scores, was such that the Panel could not rule out the risk of repetition which would lead to the potential for very serious harm.

70.       Due to the nature and seriousness of the offending, and the strong wider public interest element in this case, the Panel did not consider that a 12-month suspension would adequately address the concerns identified. The Panel could not envisage a return to practice for this Registrant in the short to medium term, if at all, and was of the view that a suspension order would not offer a sufficient level of protection to service users and the wider public due to the gravity of the offending.

71.       The Panel went on to consider a striking off order which removes a Registrant’s name from the Register and prohibits the Registrant from practising their profession.

72.       Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states ‘A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving… abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; sexual misconduct, sexual abuse of children and criminal convictions for serious offences’.

73.       The Panel found that the matter found proved was very serious in nature and the Registrant had failed to fully acknowledge the impact his intended actions would have had on a victim. For an allegation of this magnitude, with the potential to cause very serious harm, the Panel considered that no lesser sanction than a striking off order was sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.

74.       The Panel considered that even if the Registrant were to reapply for admission to the register in 5 years, he would still be the subject of a SHPO, and the public would find it inconceivable that a professional with such a restriction was permitted to practise.

75.       In making this decision, the Panel was aware that it has to act proportionately. The Panel considered the impact of the Striking Off Order on the Registrant and was of the view that the public protection and wider public interest considerations outweigh the Registrant’s own interests. Further, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order enables public confidence in the profession and its regulation to be maintained.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to Strike Off the name of Dr Rosario Canade from the Register from the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

Ms Evans on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Panel should consider covering the appeal period by imposing an 18-month interim suspension order on the Registrant’s registration. She submitted that such an order was necessary to protect the public and was in the wider public interest. Additionally, she sought to persuade the Panel that such an order was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
 

The Registrant did not make any representations or submissions to the Panel.
 

Decision 

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

The Panel determined that it would be fair and in the interests of justice to consider an interim order application.
 

The Panel was mindful that once it reaches a final decision in respect of the substantive allegation any pre-existing interim order terminates. This would mean that the Registrant would not be subject to any practice restrictions unless an interim order were imposed, as a sanction order does not come into effect until either the expiry of the appeal period, or if there is an appeal, the determination of that appeal.
The Panel was aware that the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest will weigh heavily in favour of an interim order, particularly when the Panel has made a finding of impaired fitness to practise.
 

The Panel paid careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’, which offers guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. The guidance states that Registrants should be made aware of the potential for an interim order to be imposed on their registration after the Panel has made a substantive order and should be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of an interim order.
 

The Panel recognised that its power to impose an interim order is discretionary and that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a striking off order has been imposed. The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was mindful of its findings and the public interest concerns if the Registrant were able to practise without restriction. The Panel considered that, in light of its findings, it would be perverse not to impose an interim restriction on the Registrant’s practice.
 

The Panel decided to impose an interim suspension order, with immediate effect, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an interim suspension order is necessary for protection of the public and was in the wider public interest to maintain confidence in this regulatory process.
 

The period of this Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.
 

Decision:

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Rosario Canade