Jolly Ferido

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied by the documents contained in the service bundle that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of the hearing by email dated 23 October 2023 in accordance with Rules 3 and 6(2) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended (the Rules). Delivery of notice was confirmed on the same date.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. Ms Jones made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. She informed the Panel that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC throughout these proceedings. She submitted that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel took into account fairness to the Registrant and the public interest in determining the proceedings without undue delay and had regard, in particular, to the following matters:

• The allegations related to matters which had taken place between November 2018 and October 2019. In the Panel’s judgement, it would be undesirable for there to be a further delay before concluding proceedings;

• The witnesses for the HCPC, apart from Colleague C, had all attended to give oral evidence at the hearing and should be spared the potential anxiety and inconvenience which was likely to result from further delay in concluding proceedings;

• The Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC in the proceedings and had not applied for an adjournment.

4. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the hearing to another date, as there was no likelihood that the Registrant would attend in the future.

5. Whilst there was a risk that the Registrant would be prejudiced by his absence, he had made that choice. The Panel concluded that it was in the public interest and in the interests of justice that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to amend the Allegation

6. Ms Jones made an application to amend Particular 9 to state that “Your conduct in relation to allegations 1b) and/or allegation 3(a), and/or allegation 3(b) and/or allegation 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) or 4(e) and/ allegation 5, and/or allegation 7(a), and/or allegation 7(b), and/or allegation 8 was sexual” (amendments underlined).

7. The Panel had regard to Ms Jones’s submissions and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to clarify the Allegation and that the Registrant would not be thereby prejudiced. Accordingly, the Panel granted the application.

Application for part of the hearing to be in private

8. After the HCPC had closed its case, the Panel invited Ms Jones to make an application for specific references to the private and family life of Colleague A to be in private.

9. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Panel granted the application pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules on the grounds advanced by Ms Jones.

Background

10. The Registrant was employed as a Band 6 Radiographer in the Imaging Department at the Whittington Hospital, within the Whittington Health NHS Trust (the Trust), commencing employment in October 2018.

11. During the Registrant’s employment, concerns were raised by a number of female staff at the Trust to their line manager, MH, Deputy Line Manager in the Trust’s Imaging Department, about the Registrant’s behaviour towards them during 2018 and 2019.

12. In or about September 2019, following receipt of the concerns, an investigation was commissioned by BS, Director of Operations for Acute Patient Access, Clinical Support Services, and Women’s Health ISCU at the Trust, who approached AH, at the time the Cellular Pathology Service Manager at the Trust. AH was required to investigate concerns that the Registrant had made explicit comments of a sexual nature to members of staff and that the Registrant had touched staff inappropriately. The Registrant attended the Trust’s disciplinary hearing into his alleged conduct on 18 July 2020.

13. The Registrant’s alleged conduct was referred to the HCPC in September 2020. On 13 October 2021, an Investigating Committee of the HCPC found a case to answer and referred the matter to the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee.

The hearing

14. The Panel was provided by the HCPC with a hearing bundle which included:

• the statement and investigation report of AH, to which were attached the record of interviews with the Registrant and his feedback, and with Colleagues A, B, C, and D about the relevant incidents;

• the statements of Colleagues A, B, C, and D.

15. The Panel heard oral evidence from AH and Colleagues A, B, and D. The Panel accepted in evidence the hearsay statement of Colleague C.

16. The Panel took into account all the evidence, including the notes of interview with the Registrant and his feedback.

The evidence

17. AH confirmed the content of her witness statement. She stated that she had been asked to conduct the investigation because, at the time, she had not been very long at the Trust, she was independent of the Trust’s Radiology Department, and had no pre-conceived opinions on the allegations or the staff working in that area.

18. AH was unable to give any direct evidence concerning the alleged incidents which are the subject matter of these proceedings, but provided helpful information to the Panel with regard to her investigation and her interviews with Colleagues A, B, C, and D and the Registrant.

19. The Panel was satisfied that AH had faithfully recorded her interviews with all relevant parties and gave each of them the opportunity to correct their statements. The significance of her investigation and records for the Panel was that she thereby provided the narrative accounts of the witnesses which were the nearest in time to the relevant events, when the recollections and responses of the deponents were relatively fresh and therefore most likely to be reliable.

20. The evidence of Colleagues A, B, C, and D was considered in the context of the Panel’s decisions in relation to the specific particulars of allegation referred to below.

Decision on Facts

21. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof in relation to facts was on the HCPC and the standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities.

22. The Panel had regard to all the evidence contained in the HCPC hearing bundle, the evidence of the witnesses both written and oral, and the submissions of Ms Jones on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

23. In its determination of the facts alleged in Particulars 1(b), 3(a), 3(b), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), 5, 7(a), 7(b) and 8, the Panel also determined whether facts found proved amounted to sexual conduct, as alleged in Particular 9.

24. In determining whether the conduct in question was sexual, the Panel had regard to the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred the Panel to the case of Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763 and the definition of “sexual” in section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Particular 1

1. In or around November 2018 you did not communicate professionally with Colleague A, in that:

a) You said: “if you were not married, I would marry you” or words to that effect.
Proved

b) You said: “does that mean you don’t do it” or words to that effect, when discussing Colleague A’s family life.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

25. Colleague A adopted her witness statement, in which she gave the following evidence in relation to Particulars 1(a) and 1(b):

“He then told me that he was looking for a woman and I seemed like a nice girl. He said if I wasn’t married he would marry me. Although he said it jokingly it at first, he kept repeating it. I felt uncomfortable and I did not like him saying this to me. Given the passage of time I cannot recall exactly how many times he repeated this. Although I am sure there were other people in the vicinity, they were not focused on our conversation, so no one witnessed these comments.

…

Although English is not our first language, I have never experienced any problems with [the Registrant] due to a language barrier …”

26. In her oral evidence Colleague A stated that in relation to Particular 1(a), the Registrant told her that she (Colleague A) was “a good girl and nice”, and if she had not been married he would marry her. Colleague A said that the Registrant had repeated this “a few times”. Colleague A told the Panel that she had had some sympathy for him, but she had not liked what he had said. She said that it had not fitted into their relationship, which was professional. She said that she felt it was “not appropriate” and that their relationship was not such that he should have assumed she would enter into that sort of relationship with him. She told the Panel that she did not understand his behaviour and she considered that his behaviour had been “unprofessional”.

27. The Panel noted that Colleague A’s witness statement and oral testimony were consistent with her contemporaneous accounts as recorded by AH. The Panel noted the Registrant had suggested that Colleague A misunderstood his remarks as a result of there being a language barrier. The Panel, however, believed the evidence of Colleague A that there was no such language barrier and that they both spoke good English. The Panel found Particulars 1(a) and 1(b) proved.

28. The Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant’s question “does that mean you don’t do it?” was sexual, as understood by Colleague A.

Particular 2

2. Between November 2018 and October 2019, at Whittington Health Trust Hospital, you took the hand of Colleague A and held it.
Proved

29. In her witness statement, Colleague A gave the following evidence in relation to Particular 2:

“There was a further incident I experienced in which I felt very uncomfortable around [the Registrant]. I cannot recall the exact date, but I went to get a drink of water from the water fountain. [The Registrant] was working in the room next to the dispenser, and I believe he walked out of the room and into the corridor to grab a patient. He saw me by the water fountain and started talking to me, asking me how I was. Whilst he was talking to me, he unexpectedly grabbed my hand. I did not like it at all. I felt like he was trying to get too close to me. I retracted my hand; however I failed to tell him that he was crossing the line. I simply pulled my hand away and the conversation carried on for a short while. As this incident occurred in the corridor, another member of staff may have witnessed it, however I would not have known who was around at that exact moment.”

30. In her oral testimony Colleague A stated, when asked about her comment in her Trust interview that the hand-holding incident (which the Registrant denied) had been “involuntary” on the part of the Registrant, that she meant it could have been involuntary by reason of the Registrant’s culture, as in doing so in “a friendly manner, and hence justified”. She repeated that the previous comment that the Registrant had made to her had driven the feeling of being uncomfortable with the Registrant when he had held her hand, whereas if there had been a “respectful” background to that, she would have interpreted it as a “friendly gesture”.

31. The Panel accepted Colleague A’s evidence and found Particular 2 proved.

Particular 3

In or around September 2019, you:

a) did not communicate professionally with Colleague B, in that you said: “Oooo looking good” or words to that effect.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

b) looked Colleague B up and down in an inappropriate manner in the Whittington Health Trust Hospital staff room.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

32. At the time of the alleged events, Colleague B was employed by the Trust.

33. In her witness statement dated 19 February 2021, Colleague B stated as follows:

“Completely out of the blue, [the Registrant] looked me up and down whilst saying “oooh looking good”. He then started to mention my fiancé’s name, but before he could say [the name], I cut him off and said “don’t be creepy, Jolly”. Although my response to him was not professional, I was so shocked at having been spoken to in such a manner. [The Registrant] did not like my reaction and it seemed like he was trying to make me feel bad; I say this because he told me that that I wasn’t being nice. However, the way he looked me up and down whilst saying “ooh looking good”, and mentioning my fiancé’s name, I felt that it was said as more than just a polite friendly comment … I am shocked that he expected me not to react to what I felt was such an inappropriate comment.”

34. In her oral evidence before the Panel, Colleague B stated to the Panel that she felt the Registrant had “overstepped the boundary of how he spoke to me” and had demonstrated “inappropriate behaviour” in light of the fact that he had “no rapport” with her other than in a professional sense. She told the Panel that his comment (“Oooo looking good”), together with the fact that the Registrant had mentioned her fiancé’s name, “would be referring to how lucky my fiancé was”. Colleague B told the Panel that the comment had been about her “physical appearance and almost like a sexualised regard of my appearance in the small closed off environment”.

35. Colleague B then described the Registrant as looking at her “feet to head and back down again”. She told the Panel that she had been “very angry” and felt “objectified by the way I looked and so I said immediately ‘Don’t be creepy’ and I said it in an unprofessional way, but he had said what he said first. It was an unprofessional and unsolicited comment by a colleague”. Colleague B also told the Panel, “A man wouldn’t make [the comment] to another man - it wouldn’t be sexualised”. Colleague B stated to the Panel that this had been a situation of “a younger woman in a closed off area and he was discussing my appearance”. Colleague B told the Panel that she considered the Registrant’s comment to be a “sexualised comment”, which was more than, say, discussing if someone was “healthy looking”. Colleague B said that there had been a “subtext” to his comment and that it was “very unprofessional”. Colleague B stated in relation to the Registrant’s comment and his act that “it was completely unwarranted and a bit disgusting really”, stating that she had been “very angry” and especially at the Registrant speaking like that “to a senior, or anybody”.

36. When questioned about the Registrant’s case that he had been paying her a compliment when making the comment, Colleague B stated that if it had been a compliment, it would have been made “to someone you knew well”. Colleague B acknowledged that if she had misconstrued it that would be one thing, but in this case there was “no history” between them, “no rapport and it was unprofessional”. Colleague B stated that “if there had been a rapport, maybe I’d have seen it differently”.

37. Colleague D was present at this incident and had mentioned it when interviewed by AH. When asked about what she remembered about the incident involving Colleague B in the locker room, as she had been there at the time, Colleague D said that she did not think that the Registrant “had said anything wrong” and that what he had said to Colleague B “had seemed to be a genuine compliment”. She said that he had not been “leering” at Colleague B and that he seemed to have been “surprised” by her comment to him that he was “being creepy”.

38. The Panel noted that the Registrant had claimed he was paying Colleague B an innocent compliment.

39. Based on the evidence of Colleague B and Colleague D, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had spoken the words referred to in Particular 3(a). In the Panel’s judgment, and notwithstanding the comments of Colleague D, the Registrant’s communication was unprofessional.

40. The Panel also accepted the evidence of Colleague B that the Registrant looked her up and down in an inappropriate manner. Whilst the Panel noted Colleague D’s comment that she did not see the Registrant leering at Colleague B, it was not towards Colleague D that the Registrant’s looks were directed.

41. The Panel noted that Colleague B had immediately made a complaint about the Registrant’s conduct. The Panel found that the Registrant’s words as found proved in Particular 3(a) and behaviour as found proved in Particular 3(b) were sexual as understood by Colleague B.

Particular 4

Between January 2019 and September 2019, you did not communicate professionally with Colleague C, in that:

a) You said: “I wouldn’t want to be your man, if that is what you do” to Colleague C or words to that effect while they were drinking from a water bottle
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

b) You said: “are you showing us how it is done” or words to that effect to Colleague C while they were eating a banana
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

c) You said: “you are having too much protein from your husband, it’s causing you to get lots of spots on your face” or words to that effect.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

d) You said: “of course you are, too much sex does that to you” or words to that effect after Colleague C commented that she was hungry.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

e) You said: “your lips are so big, I know exactly what they would be good at” or words to that effect.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

42. At the material time Colleague C was employed by the Trust. She stated in her witness statement dated 11 October 2022 that she relied upon her written account to MH via email on 20 September 2019 and a verbal account she had given to AH on 16 October 2019, which had been recorded in a non-verbatim note on 16 October 2019.

43. In her 20 September 2019 email, Colleague C made a complaint about the Registrant to MH which included the following:

“Before I was married he would make inappropriate comments about me and him being in a relationship and dating him. Then after I got married the comments turned into comments about my private life with my husband. Some of the incidents that have taken place include:

• I was drinking out of a plastic water bottle, and broke the nozzle. [The Registrant] saw that is was broken and commented “I wouldn’t want to be your man, if that is what you do”;

• I was eating a banana in the morning when I was coming in to work. When I had finished eating my banana he commented “are you showing us how it is done”. [A] was also present and was shocked by the comment;

• I came in for my night shift, taking over from [the Registrant]. He came up to me and touched my face counting how many spots I have on my face. He said “you’re having too much protein from your husband, it’s causing you to get lots of spots on your face”;

• It was approaching lunch time and I was saying I am feeling hungry. He said “of course you are, too much sex does that to you”;

• He always comments on my looks and my body, over complimenting and saying how good I’d be as his girlfriend;

• He commented on my lips many times, saying “your lips are so big, I know exactly what they would be good at”.”

44. When interviewed on 24 September 2019, the Registrant denied making any of the remarks attributed to him by Colleague C. However, the Registrant went on to say that “During her first week she worked with me, she is newly qualified it is my nature to joke around, if I said anything unconsciously or not deliberately, this is why I want to apologise to them for making them feel uncomfortable, I consider them friends, we work as a team and are family”.

45. The Panel paid due regard to the fact that Colleague C’s statement was hearsay evidence, so it did not have the benefit of asking her any questions or observing her demeanour when giving her evidence. However, the Panel noted that her witness statement was consistent with her contemporaneous complaint about the Registrant’s behaviour towards her. The Panel also noted that the Registrant’s denial of having made the alleged comments was qualified by his admission to “joking around in the department” and his expressed willingness to apologise “for making them feel uncomfortable”. He later stated in the interview “I am not 100% innocent”.

46. The Panel also noted that the nature of the remarks allegedly made by the Registrant to Colleague C was consistent with those allegedly made by him independently to Colleagues A, B, and D. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had made each of the comments referred to above and that accordingly, Particulars 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), and 4(e) were proved.

47. The Panel also found that the Registrant’s conduct in respect of each of these particulars was sexual.

Particular 5

Between September 2019 and October 2019, you hugged Colleague C after they had told you hugging made them uncomfortable due to their religion.
Proved (but not that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

48. With regard to Particular 5, Colleague C gave evidence that “[the Registrant] is also very touchy and hugs very inappropriately on multiple occasions. He would randomly touch my arm and my hand whilst I am working and stroke it. A few weeks ago, I did take him to the side and said [to the Registrant] due to my religion I would prefer it if you would stop hugging me. He accepted it for a couple of weeks. Then he just started again”.

49. When interviewed about this on 24 November 2019, the Registrant stated, “I do recall the hugging conversation, she is stating due to getting married and religion”. In reply to the question “Did you stop hugging her after this and then start again?”, the Registrant said, “I put my arm around her and she hasn’t said that it was uncomfortable”.

50. The Panel considered the Registrant’s response to be tantamount to an admission to Colleague C’s complaint that he had hugged her after being told that it made her feel uncomfortable due to her religion. Accordingly, Particular 5 was proved.

51. The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in hugging Colleague C was sexual. It was acknowledged by the witnesses that the Registrant was a tactile person who was in the habit of hugging colleagues without an apparent sexual purpose.

Particular 6

In or around September 2019:

a) you asked to see the hair of Colleague C, who is Muslim and wears a headscarf; and
Proved

b) You took the phone from Colleague C without her permission to view an image of her without her headscarf.
Proved

52. In relation to Particulars 6(a) and 6(b), Colleague C stated, “[The Registrant] was also very adamant for months that I just show him my hair. He said a quick peep. I refused of course. Then he just kept going on, then he said just show me a picture then. My phone was unlocked and I had a picture of me on my background and he took my phone and had a look. He was saying finally I saw it. This made me feel very upset, angry and vulnerable. I felt that I couldn’t say anything”.

53. When interviewed about this on 24 November 2019, the Registrant denied the alleged incident, stating “In their religion it is a no, I am aware only the husband should see. Why would I want to touch or see their hair? If I would, I would do this with [Z] as all the same religion”.

54. The Panel noted that Colleague C’s evidence in relation to this incident had been consistent. The Panel considered it most unlikely that she would fabricate such an incident, which was in-keeping with other behaviour on the Registrant’s part towards young female colleagues. The Panel found Particulars 6(a) and 6(b) proved.

Particular 7

Between January 2019 and October 2019, you:

a) Hugged Colleague D; and
Proved (but not that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

b) Kissed the top of Colleague D ‘s head, without the consent of Colleague D and in an inappropriate manner.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

55. At the time of the alleged events, Colleague D was employed by the Trust. In her witness statement, dated 21 March 2022, Colleague D stated that she had provided a written account of the event to MH by email on 20 September 2019. Colleague D also stated that she had provided a verbal account to AH, recorded in a non-verbatim note on 17 October 2019. Colleague D made one correction to that note in her witness statement.

56. In relation to Particular 7(a), Colleague D gave evidence that the Registrant had hugged her on occasions. The Registrant did not dispute this and accordingly the Panel found Particular 7(a) proved.

57. The Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct in hugging Colleague D was sexual and was not so satisfied. It was acknowledged by the witnesses, including Colleague D, that the Registrant was a tactile person who was in the habit of hugging colleagues without an apparent sexual purpose.

58. With regard to Particular 7(b), Colleague D stated as follows in her witness statement:

“An incident occurred during one lunch break; I cannot recall the exact date, which was the last straw for me. I had finished my lunch, and I had gotten up to straighten my hair and put some perfume on in the student room. [The Registrant] suddenly pulled me into a big cuddle. He locked onto me tightly and drew me in. He kissed me on the top of my head and said “ooh you smell nice” in an odd tone. I felt [the Registrant] kiss me just above my forehead. The kiss was long enough that I had to pull myself away from him and say “bugger off Jolly”. It made me feel extremely uncomfortable, I was very embarrassed and I didn’t know how to deal with it. There were a few students in the room who were finishing that year, but they didn’t seem to notice. I didn’t report the incident to anyone at the time, because I didn’t want to be that person who complained and got the reputation that went with it.”

59. In her oral evidence before the Panel, the laptop Colleague D was using did not have a camera and so she gave her oral evidence by audio means only. Therefore, the Panel did not view her demeanour. However, the Panel noted that her oral evidence was consistent with her witness statement and her contemporaneous account when interviewed. She told the Panel that she felt uncomfortable around the Registrant after this incident and did not want to work with him. In describing the detail of the kiss, Colleague D told the Panel that the Registrant “stood up and literally pulled me in and held me and said ‘you smell nice’ and kissed me on top of my head”. She told the Panel that when he pulled her into him, he pulled her “to his whole body” and she said that their bodies touched. She said, “now I’m facing him and him to me. It was the most uncomfortable feeling I’ve ever had in any workplace”. Colleague D further stated to the Panel that the Registrant’s actions were “overt” and “more than friendship”. She said, “it wasn’t right”.

60. Colleague D also stated to the Panel that this event had been someone “pushing into my own personal space”. She stated that she did “not want to say it was sexual because it makes me feel worse and I’ve put it to bed ages ago”. She said it was behaviour that was “unprofessional more than friendly”. Colleague D stated to the Panel that the kiss on the head was “going too far”. Colleague D then stated, “I’m not saying it’s sexual, but it’s more sexual than friendship”. She told the Panel that it was “an unprovoked, unwelcome and not wanted, not expected” event. She said that she was not in a relationship with the Registrant and asked, “why would you do that?”. She told the Panel that it was “sensual” and made her feel “extremely uncomfortable”. Colleague D said that she did not “lead him on”, that they were not friends out of work, and she felt that if she had reported it immediately, the complaint would have been treated as if, “as a female”, she “had led” the Registrant “on”. Colleague D then stated that she had to clarify she was not saying it was “friendship in that way”. She told the Panel, “a kiss is when you are involved with someone; it’s more sensual”. Colleague D said that the Registrant did it “without invitation” and that she and the Registrant were “not even out of work friends”.

61. When asked about whether the department was a “touchy-feely” type of place to work, Colleague D stated that that it was “a nice place to work” and that there was “a very big difference” between being “touchy-feely” by putting a caring arm around someone or asking permission to do that and what the Registrant had done. She said to the Panel that the Registrant “had crossed that line”. She repeated to the Panel that the Registrant had “overstepped the line” and that she was “definite” about it - “a hundred per cent” - and that the Registrant had needed to “dial it back”.

62. The Registrant made no admissions with regard to this incident. He said that he considered Colleague D to be a friend and that, if he had done anything to offend her that was unintentional, he would apologise to her personally.

63. The Panel noted that, prior to this incident, Colleague D and the Registrant had been on friendly terms but that after the incident Colleague D went out of her way to avoid him. In the Panel’s judgement this lent credence to Colleague D’s version of events, which had been consistent throughout. The Panel accepted her evidence and found Particular 7(b) proved.

64. Whilst noting the reluctance of Colleague D to characterise the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particular 7(b) as sexual, such conduct in the Panel’s judgement was sexual.

Particular 8

Between January 2019 and October 2019, you did not communicate professionally with Colleague D, in that you said “you smell nice” or words to that effect.
Proved (and that the Registrant’s conduct was sexual)

65. As described by Colleague D in her evidence, the Registrant’s comment that she “smelled nice” took place at the same time that he grabbed hold of her and kissed the top of her head.

66. As stated above, the Panel believed Colleague D’s evidence in relation to this incident and therefore found Particular 8 proved.

67. For the same reasons as given in relation to Particular 7(b), the Panel found the Registrant’s conduct to have been sexual.

Particular 9

Your conduct in relation to allegations 1b) and/or allegation 3(a), and/or allegation 3(b) and/or allegation 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) or 4(e) and/ allegation 5, and/or allegation 7 (a), and/or allegation 7 (b), and/or allegation 8 was sexual.

68. As already stated above, the Panel found the Registrant’s conduct to have been sexual in relation to Particulars 1(b), 3(a), 3(b), 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) 4(e), 7(b), and 8, but not in relation to Particular 5 and Particular 7(a).

Decision on Grounds

69. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 to 9 inclusive of the Allegation amounted to misconduct as alleged in Particular 10.

70. The Panel had regard to the submissions of Ms Jones and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

71. The Panel was mindful that this was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgment, there being no standard or burden of proof.

72. Misconduct was defined in Roylance v GMC (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 as:

“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the conduct to the profession … Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious …”

73. In the case of Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin), the court stated that:

“The adjective ‘serious’ must be given its proper weight, and in other contexts there has been reference to conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

74. The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of the following standards of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics

• Standard 1.7: Maintain appropriate professional boundaries;

• Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust in you and your profession.

75. The Panel found that the Registrant was also in breach of the following standards in the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers, namely:

• Standard 8.1: Be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinion to … colleagues and others

• Standard 9.1: Be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with … other professionals, support staff and others

• Standard 9.2: Understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent professional and collaboratively as a member of a team

• Standard 9.5: Be able to contribute effectively to work undertaken as part of a multi-disciplinary team

76. In respect of each of the proven particulars, the Panel found that the Registrant’s practice fell seriously below the standards of conduct expected of him as a Radiographer. He targeted young female colleagues, who were the unwilling and unprovoked recipients of his sexual comments and conduct. The Panel considered that his conduct would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.

77. The Panel found each of the proven facts to constitute misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

78. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

79. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Panel took into account both the ‘personal’ and ‘public’ components of impairment of fitness to practise. The personal component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The public component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

80. The Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was and remains impaired having regard to the personal component. The Registrant made no admissions to the allegations and had not engaged in these proceedings. The Registrant expressed no remorse for his misconduct towards his colleagues and even suggested in the course of his responses to the Trust’s investigation into the complaints that his colleagues had colluded against him. He had shown no insight into the effect of his actions on any of his colleagues or on his profession. He provided the Panel with no evidence of remediation or Continuing Professional Development (CPD) undertaken, or any information as to what he has been doing since the conclusion of the Trust investigation into his conduct. Hs lack of engagement in this hearing was a further indication of his lack of insight. Given the Registrant’s lack of remorse, insight, and remediation, the Panel considered that there remains a significant risk of repetition.

81. With regard to the public component of impairment, the Panel was mindful of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour on the part of registrants. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct represented a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a member of his profession, which, in the absence of any evidence as to insight and remediation, was likely to be repeated. In the Panel’s judgement, public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

82. Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired having regard to both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction

83. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Jones.

84. The Registrant did not provide the Panel with any information or submissions.

85. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

86. By way of mitigation, the Panel noted that in interview the Registrant stated as follows:

“I am not perfect and feel if this had been raised to me previously, it may not have happened, I am not 100% innocent, wish had been addressed to give me an option to change my behaviour. I am not asking for leniency … I would never deliberately harass or hurt my colleagues, if I am unaware of things and wish it had been addressed earlier, I would like to apologise to them.”

87. However, the Panel noted that the Registrant did not in fact make any admissions and his apology was provisional and therefore of limited value.

88. The Panel noted that there were no concerns about the Registrant’s clinical competence as a Radiographer.

89. The aggravating factors in this case were that:

• the Registrant targeted younger female colleagues for his sexual comments and conduct, which continued over a period of approximately 12 months and formed a pattern of behaviour which appeared to have been attitudinal and deep-seated;

• his behaviour had the potential to cause anxiety and distress on the part of his colleagues who were the victims of his sexually inappropriate behaviour;

• he had shown no remorse for his behaviour, apart from his provisional apology referred to above;

• he had shown a persistent lack of insight as to the nature and effect of his conduct on his colleagues and the negative impact on the working environment and on the reputation of the profession at large;

• he had not engaged with the HCPC at any stage in these proceedings;

• he had provided no evidence of reflection, remediation, or any relevant information about his work or personal circumstances which might be relevant to sanction;

• in the absence of remorse, insight, or remediation, there was a significant risk of repetition.

90. The case was too serious for the Panel to take no further action. Mediation was not relevant.

91. A Caution Order would not be effective to address the risk of repetition and would be insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.

92. A Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate because the Panel was unable to formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns relating to the Registrant’s misconduct. In any event, conditions of practice would be irrelevant given the Registrant’s failure to engage in these proceedings.

93. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. However, given the Registrant’s lack of remorse, insight, and remediation, his failure to engage, and the significant risk of repetition, a Suspension Order would not be appropriate.

94. The HCPC Sanctions Policy provides the following guidance in relation to Striking Off Orders:

“A Striking Off Order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:

• Lacks insight
• Continues to repeat the misconduct
• Is unwilling to resolve matters”

95. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant demonstrated both that he lacks insight and is unwilling to resolve matters. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the appropriate sanction was a Striking Off Order.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Jolly Ferido from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Ms Jones made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged was determined.

2. The Panel noted Ms Jones’s submissions and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3. Given the Panel’s decision to impose a Striking Off Order, it would be inconsistent with that decision not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, came to the conclusion that it was impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.

4. The Panel therefore made an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, the same being in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.

5. 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. This Interim Suspension Order is made for the maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Jolly Ferido