Mr Jonathan Widnall

Preliminary Matters

Application to amend the Allegation

1. The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) made an application to amend the Allegation. It stated that this was to make the Allegation reflect the evidence, in particular the date of the conviction. It submitted that there was no prejudice to the Registrant in the making of the amendment, notice of which was sent to the Registrant on 17 December 2021. The amended Notice of Allegation was within the hearing documentation.

2. The amendment application was in relation to the following particulars:

As a registered Radiographer (RA47959) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction in that:

1. On 9 10 September 2020 at North Yorkshire Magistrates' Court you were convicted of:

a) Pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of Person A and which you knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of Person A in that between October 2019 and January 2020 you sent numerous emails and text messages of an offensive and intimidating nature, contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

b) Pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of Person B and which you knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of Person B in that you persistently sent numerous emails and text messages of an insulting and distressing nature, contrary to section 2(1) and (2) of the protection from Harassment Act 1997.

2. By reason of your conviction, your fitness to practicse is impaired.

3. The HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the evidence it relied upon to support the amendment to the date of the conviction.

4. The Registrant agreed to the amendment application.

5. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. It was aware that in considering this application it must ensure the hearing is a fair one and it should not make any amendments which would prejudice the Registrant. The Panel considered each proposed amendment. It determined that the HCPC’s proposed amendments did not alter the case against the Registrant and better reflected the evidence.

6. The Panel noted that the Registrant was informed of the proposed amendments within the amended Notice of Allegation dated 17 December 2021 and that he agreed to the amendments.

7. The Panel decided to allow both of the proposed amendments to the Allegation. It was satisfied that there was no unfairness or prejudice to the Registrant.

Hearing in private

8. The HCPC made an application for such parts of this hearing as may deal with the Registrant’s health and personal life to be heard in private, in accordance with the provisions of section 10(1)(a) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules). The HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s privacy in these circumstances would outweigh the public interest and that the matters under consideration relating to his health and personal life should be heard in private.

9. The Registrant agreed with the application to proceed with parts of the hearing in private.

10. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. It had regard to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules and to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”. The Panel was satisfied that it was both proportionate and in the interests of justice to hear parts of this hearing relating to the Registrant’s health and personal life in private, on the basis that his right to privacy outweighed the public interest in having the entirety of the hearing in public.

Additional Documentation Received into Evidence

11. On 24 May 2022, the second day of the hearing, the Registrant submitted documentation to the Panel with the agreement of the HCPC. The Panel, having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, accepted this documentation into evidence.

Background

12. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer.

13. The Registrant was employed by Alliance Medical Limited at the relevant time. On 26 January 2020, the Registrant sent a self-referral form to the HCPC notifying it that he had been suspended from work pending a police investigation into allegations of harassment.

14. On 27 January 2020, the HCPC received notification via a civil disclosure from North Yorkshire Police in respect of the Registrant’s arrest. Following his arrest, Alliance Medical Limited conducted an investigation into the Registrant’s conduct.

15. On 10 September 2020, the Registrant pleaded guilty and was convicted at North Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court of the offences as set out within the Allegation, namely harassment of Person A and Person B.

16. In respect of Particular 1a) relating to harassment of Person A, the Registrant was sentenced to:

“COEW

Community order made.

The defendant must comply with the following requirements by 08/04/2022: Rehabilitation Activity Requirement: Offender to comply with any instructions of the responsible officer to attend appointments (with the responsible officer or someone else nominated by them) or to participate in any activity as required by the responsible officer up to a maximum of 30 days.

Unpaid Work Requirement: Carry out unpaid work for 160 hours within the next twelve months. This work will be supervised by the responsible officer.

RESTRAO

Restraining order made for the defendant in the following terms: Not to contact directly or indirectly, communicate with or approach Person A … This order last until 08/10/ 2023. This order is made on conviction

FVS
To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £90
FCPC
To pay costs of £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service
COLLO
Collection order made
GPTAC
Defendants guilty plea taken into account when imposing sentence.”

17. In respect of Particular 1b) relating to harassment of Person B, the Registrant was sentenced to

“COEW

Community order made. The defendant must comply with the following requirements by 08/04/2022: Rehabilitation Activity Requirement: Offender to comply with any instructions of the responsible officer to attend appointments (with the responsible officer or someone else nominated by them) or to participate in any activity as required by the responsible officer up to a maximum of 30 days.

Unpaid Work Requirement: Carry out unpaid work for 160 hours within the next twelve months. This work will be supervised by the responsible officer.

RESTRAO

Restraining order made for the defendant in the following terms: Not to contact directly or indirectly, Person B by any means whatsoever. Not to enter [redacted]. This order lasts until 08/04/2022. This order is made on conviction.

Time to Pay: £10.00per week commencing 06/11/2020. Balance 175.00 (as at 26/10/2021).”

Decision on Facts

18. The documents in this case included a Memorandum of an Entry in the Register of North Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court which confirmed the charges above, the pleas of guilty entered by the Registrant (who was legally represented), and the sentence which was imposed.

19. The Panel also noted the Registrant’s admissions to Particulars 1a) and 1b).

20. The Panel took account of the submissions from the HCPC and the Registrant and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that the Memorandum of an Entry as the certificate of conviction was incontrovertible evidence of the facts stated therein, and thus the Panel found Particulars 1a) and 1b) proved.

Decision on Impairment

21. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the convictions, having found the facts proved which, as convictions, form the statutory ground upon which a finding of impairment may be based.

Submissions

22. The HCPC Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public components. In relation to the personal component, the Presenting Officer asked the Panel to consider whether, on the information before it, the Registrant has demonstrated an understanding of the seriousness of his conduct and its impact on Person A, Person B, and his profession. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant’s behaviour appeared to be attitudinal and there was nothing before the Panel to demonstrate the Registrant’s insight. He drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s recorded answers at the police investigation and said they were a “mixed bag”, and that the Registrant did not appear to appreciate the alarm and distress he was causing. The Presenting Officer continued that there was no evidence before the Panel to demonstrate that the Registrant had developed insight.

23. Turning to the public component, the Presenting Officer submitted that whilst there did not appear to be any service user complaints, the Registrant’s conviction arising from his harassment could give rise to safety implications, as it would affect the work of the team and be a legitimate cause for concern regarding the protection of the wider public. The Presenting Officer submitted that a member of the public would not expect a member of the profession to have these convictions and it would affect the public’s confidence in the regulation and reputation of the profession, and the maintenance of standards in the profession, if the Registrant were allowed to practise.

24. The Presenting Officer submitted that there was a high likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s behaviour and the Panel should consider the effect of that on the delivery of care. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant had caused a significant degree of harm, anxiety, and fear, and the repetition of the behaviour leading to the convictions was a very serious consideration.

25. The Registrant submitted that he has fully remediated and he is not currently impaired. He stated that he has “paid his debt to society”. The Registrant further submitted that in relation to the convictions for harassment, the content of the messages he communicated to Person A and Person B was “horrific” and he does not know why he thought that it was acceptable. The Registrant stated that he has since sought help and support from his family and he has completed the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) support sessions imposed as part of his sentence. Within these sessions he has learned techniques to address his difficulties before matters “spiral out of control”.

26. The Registrant stated that his situation is much improved. He submitted that he has completed the RAR and Unpaid Work Requirement of his sentence but he was not able to obtain documentation from his Probation Officer to support this, although he had requested it. He stated that he is currently self-employed as a painter and decorator, having not worked as a Radiographer since April 2020, although he has kept himself up-to-date by reading relevant materials.

27. The Registrant expressed his remorse and submitted that he has addressed the factors which caused him to act the way that he did, and the risk of this happening again is “nonexistent”.

Panel’s Decision

28. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its role was not to go behind the conviction, nor was it to seek to retry the criminal case. She advised the Panel that its task was to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired based upon the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the criminal offences concerned. Whether fitness to practise is impaired has to be assessed at today’s date. The Panel’s task is not to punish for past misdoings, but it does need to take account of past acts or omissions in determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. She referred the Panel to Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel that it should bear in mind the principle of public protection in its broadest sense.

29. The Panel was advised that it could take into consideration that the Registrant pleaded guilty to the offences and that a guilty plea entered at the first reasonable opportunity is indicative of greater insight on the part of the Registrant than one entered at the last moment.

30. The Panel took account of the Registrant’s evidence on Affirmation, as well as the parties’ submissions and the documentation submitted by the HCPC. It took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and “Finding Impairment”. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

31. The Panel recognised that there is no burden or standard of proof and that the question of current impairment is a matter for its independent judgment. The Panel considered the matter from the perspective of both the personal and public components.

32. The Panel determined that, on any view, the crimes which the Registrant has committed have to be regarded as serious. They involved the repeated harassment, over a period of several months, of Person A and Person B. The Registrant was convicted of two offences under the Harassment Act 1997, including that he “sent Person A numerous emails and text messages of an offensive and intimidating nature” and “persistently sent numerous emails and text messages of an insulting and distressing nature, to Person B”. The messages were persistent, threatening, and used derogatory language such as “fat slag”. This involved the Registrant setting up multiple social media and email accounts across several platforms and using multiple mobile phone numbers to communicate with Person A and Person B without disclosing his identity. Person B made repeated requests for the Registrant to stop contacting her.

33. The Panel noted that in addition to the sentences of the RAR up to a maximum of 30 days and a 160 hours’ Unpaid Work Requirement, a Restraining Order was imposed against the Registrant in respect of both Person A and Person B, until 8 October 2023 and 8 April 2022 respectively.

34. In determining the question of impairment, the Panel first considered the personal component. So far as the personal component is concerned, the Panel considered that the offences were very serious. In considering whether the Registrant would be liable in the future to act in a similar way again, the Panel had careful regard to matters of insight, remorse, and remediation. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s evidence that he has completed the RAR, which included learning about “getting support before things spiral out of control”, and has now accessed support for a health condition which, he submitted, contributed to his behaviour.

35. The Panel noted the Registrant’s father’s statement, which was supportive of the Registrant’s account of the difficult circumstances he was experiencing at the time of offending. However, the Panel bore in mind that there was no independent medical information before it to support that the Registrant is suffering from the health condition he has identified, nor that his behaviour resulting in his convictions was the result of this health condition. Further, there was no independent information about what progress the Registrant has made to address his offending behaviour since he was sentenced, including confirmation as to whether he has completed the RAR.

36. The Panel also took into account the Registrant’s plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, as well as his expression of regret and his reflection in the course of giving his evidence, which suggested a degree of insight.

37. However, the Panel was of the view that the insight shown was extremely limited. For example, the Panel noted that the Registrant responded during cross-examination with “if she told me to stop at any point I may have done”, despite the documentation stating, and the Registrant accepting, that he was repeatedly asked by Person B to stop his behaviour and did not do so.

38. The Panel also noted that whilst the Registrant expressed that he was “truly regretful” of what he had done, his response when asked about the effect of his behaviour was, “I did not think it caused all the things she stated”. The Panel concluded there was very limited evidence from the Registrant as to any reflection upon the convictions or of the impact of his conduct on Person A and Person B, or upon his profession. This lack of reflection led the Panel to decide that there was very limited evidence before it of any insight which would lead to remediation. In the circumstances, the Panel was not able to conclude that there was, at the present time, anything other than a risk that the Registrant would repeat behaviour of the sort which resulted in the convictions.

39. The Panel found that the Registrant has and is likely in the future to put service users at unwarranted risk of harm; has and is likely in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; has and is likely in the future to breach fundamental tenets of the profession; and that he has and is likely in the future to act in an intimidatory and harassing way. Consequently, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired with regard to the personal component.

40. The Panel was also mindful of the guidance in CHRE v NMC and Grant and Cohen v General Medical Council 2008 EWHC on the central importance of the wider public interest and the need to safeguard public confidence both in the profession and the HCPC. It considered what a member of the public would make of the Registrant’s conduct and the effect which this would have on the reputation of the profession.

41. The Panel determined that the public would be appalled by the conduct of the Registrant. It also noted the potential for harm to service users, as well as the harm caused to Person B.

42. The Panel determined that, given the nature and gravity of the convictions, in order to declare and uphold proper standards and to maintain confidence in the profession and the regulator, a finding of impairment is required on public interest grounds. The Panel therefore also concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component.

43. On both these grounds, the Panel was persuaded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction

Submissions

44. The Presenting Officer submitted that the convictions were very serious. There was a breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics by the Registrant, in particular a breach of trust.

45. The Presenting Officer submitted that there were two separate individuals who had been harassed, and the offending behaviour was repeated over a period of time. He stated that there was a lack of insight from the Registrant, which meant that there would be a higher risk to the public of the behaviour being repeated. The Presenting Officer reserved the decision as to the appropriate sanction to the Panel.

46. The Registrant submitted that he was sorry and he regretted his actions. He stated that he “had paid the price”. He submitted that he had taken steps to help himself as part his Community Order.

Panel’s Decision

47. In coming to its own independent decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer on behalf of the HCPC, as well as those of the Registrant. It also had regard to the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy (SP). The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, including that it should apply the principle of proportionality in weighing the interests of the public against those of the Registrant. The public interest includes not only the protection of service users, but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

48. The Panel took into account the following aggravating and mitigating factors:

• In mitigation, it could be said that it was to the credit of the Registrant that he pleaded guilty at the Magistrates’ Court.

• The significant aggravating factors included a lack of insight; a lack of genuine remorse for the victims rather than the consequences for the Registrant; repetition of the behaviour towards two individuals; the behaviour continuing over a period of time; a breach of the Registrant’s employer’s trust; and no independent evidence of any steps having been taken by the Registrant himself to remediate his behaviour. The Registrant also did not cease his behaviour until the police became involved in a criminal investigation.

49. In the view of the Panel, there was a risk of repetition. This was not only because there were two separate victims of the Registrant’s harassment, but also because the aggravating factors mentioned above indicated to the Panel that the Registrant appears to have acquired limited insight into how his behaviour impacted on Person A and Person B.

50. The Panel was of the view that it would not be sufficient to conclude this case by taking no action or by referring it for mediation. Neither course would serve to protect service users or maintain the standing of, or public confidence in, the profession or the regulator.

51. Equally, the Panel did not consider that the imposition of a Caution Order would adequately reflect the seriousness of the case.

52. The Panel came to the same conclusion when considering the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel considered that the concerns are attitudinal and the Registrant has limited insight. The Panel, who noted that the Registrant is not currently working in the profession but as a painter and decorator, was not satisfied that it could formulate any workable, measurable, and proportionate conditions that would adequately address the concerns and the seriousness in this case.

53. In terms of a Suspension Order, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant would, if given the opportunity, be able to develop his insight further and undertake remediation in the future. The Panel noted that a Suspension Order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order but which do not require a registrant to be struck off the register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• The concerns represent a serious breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics;

• The Registrant has insight;

• The issues are unlikely to be repeated (with, in this case, sufficient remediation);

• There is evidence to suggest a registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

54. Although the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct involved serious breaches of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, it did also find that he was capable of remedying his behaviour.

55. The Panel was therefore satisfied that a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months was the appropriate and proportionate order. In terms of duration, the Panel considered that a period of 9 months would provide the Registrant with sufficient opportunity to develop his insight further and implement the measures necessary to remedy his behaviour, and to provide evidence of this.

56. The Panel did remind itself of those paragraphs of the SP that deal with the circumstances in which a Striking Off Order is appropriate. However, it took the view that the nature and gravity of the concerns can be addressed and the Registrant is willing to address them. A Suspension Order for a period of 9 months is sufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process. The Panel recognised the significant impact a sanction of suspension has upon a registrant, but was satisfied that, in all the circumstances, this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose.

57. The Panel also considered that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by:

• A reflective piece regarding the impact of the Registrant’s behaviour on Person A and Person B, the wider profession, and the HCPC as regulator;

• Personal and professional references and testimonials regarding the Registrant’s character;

• Evidence (such as certificates or confirmation of course attendance) as to the Registrant’s Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and how he has kept his skills and knowledge up-to-date;

• Any other information or documentation which the Registrant would consider helpful to the reviewing panel, including any reports in respect of his health.

That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Jonathan Widnall for a period of 9 months from the date this order comes into effect.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry.

Interim Order

1. The Panel considered whether an interim order should be imposed in terms of Article 31(3) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel noted that the Registrant was alerted to the potential for the imposition of an interim order in the Notice of Hearing dated 16 March 2022.

2. The Panel heard submissions from the parties as to whether an interim order should be imposed.

3. The Presenting Officer submitted that in view of the Panel’s finding of impairment on the convictions, and the nature and seriousness of these, an interim order was necessary to protect the public and was in the wider public interest. An interim order would cover the period during which the Registrant could submit an appeal to the High Court regarding the Panel’s determination.

4. The Registrant submitted that he agreed with the interim order application made by the HCPC.

5. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice from the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Interim Orders”.

6. The Panel assessed the risk to the public and the wider public interest and considered whether an interim order was necessary and proportionate.

7. The Panel had regard to the nature of the Allegation as proved by the convictions and decided that there was a serious and ongoing risk to service users and the public from the Registrant's behaviour. The Panel was satisfied that confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant were allowed to remain in unrestricted practice pending the outcome of any appeal.

8. The Panel determined that an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period was necessary to protect the public and was in the wider public interest.

9. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of 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 Mr Jonathan Widnall