Wojciech Zakrzewski
Profession: Paramedic
Registration Number: PA44502
Interim Order:
Imposed on 01 Feb 2021
Hearing Type: Final Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 13/10/2023
End:
17:00 13/10/2023
Location:
Virtually via videoconference
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic (PA44502) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction. In that:
1. On 17 June 2022, you were convicted at Manchester Crown Court of ‘Voyeurism – recording a private act – SOA 2003’.
2. By reason of your conviction your fitness to practise is impaired.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The notice of this hearing (the Notice of Hearing) was sent by email to Mr Zakrzewski on 28 April 2023. The Notice of Hearing contained the date and time of the hearing and that it would be conducted remotely by video conference. Mr Zakrzewski responded to the Notice of Hearing by email on 28 June 2023.
2. Having been provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing dated 28 April 2023 and having received the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that the Notice of Hearing had been served effectively.
Application to adjourn
3. Mr Zakrzewski was not present when the hearing began. Mr D’Alton explained that Mr Zakrzewski had written an email on 28 June 2023 asking the Panel to ‘…postpone’ (adjourn) the hearing. Mr Zakrzewski had said:
‘I really want to ask you to postpone tomorrow's case. My motivation is that I have a job interview scheduled tomorrow. I have been unemployed for over half a year... I don't want benefits, I want a job, and tomorrow's meeting may be a good opportunity. I am available on Friday 30th.
I am asking you to consider my appeal positively.
4. Mr D’Alton opposed the application if it meant losing all of the first day, because Mr Zakrzewski had not responded to the Notice of Hearing until less than 24 hours before the hearing was scheduled to proceed. Further, he had not responded to the bundle sent to him in November 2022. He had not submitted a defence bundle containing any reflections or remediation or any statements. Mr Zakrzewski had not supported his application with objective confirmation of his job interview. Additionally, the case manager had spoken to Mr Zakrzewski by telephone on 28 June 2023 where Mr Zakrzewski was asked to provide reasons for adjournment and any supporting documents by email. However, no further information or documents were provided in Mr Zakrzewski’s response. Mr D’Alton submitted that there was a risk that the case would become part-heard resulting in a lengthy delay in resolving the matter. Equally, adjourning the matter to be heard to a later date would also create a lengthy delay.
5. Mr D’Alton was not opposed to an adjournment until 1 pm on day one, which in the circumstances, would be fair and a proportionate response. That would allow Mr Zakrzewski to complete his interview and attend remotely afterwards. There was a reasonable chance that the case could conclude within the time allocated, depending on any time taken in evidence, if any, and in reading any materials supplied by Mr Zakrzewski.
6. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and considered the HCPTS Practice Note on Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings. It had regard to the factors derived from the High Court case of CPS v Picton (2006) EWHC 1108. The Panel decided that Mr Zakrzewski’s application would be granted to the extent that the case would be adjourned until 1 pm on day one. That would be fair to Mr Zakrzewski and would allow him an opportunity to participate effectively at that time, including by renewing his application to adjourn with submissions and any evidence in support of his application.
Proceeding in the absence of Mr Zakrzewski
7. Mr Zakrzewski was absent when the case recalled at 1 pm. Mr D’Alton informed the Panel that efforts had been made to contact Mr Zakrzewski unsuccessfully. Mr D’Alton applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of Mr Zakrzewski under Rule 11 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) Rules 2003 (the Rules). He informed the Panel that Mr Zakrzewski had not responded to efforts made by phone and email to inform him of the Panel’s decision and to encourage him to participate in the hearing.
8. Mr D’Alton explained that an officer from the HCPC had provided a note of the efforts made, including:
‘11:22AM I called the Registrant. He answered but he was not responding to me. It sounded as if his phone was in his pocket. I tried communicating with him for around 40 seconds with no response.
11:23AM I called the Registrant again. No response and left a voicemail informing him of the brief adjournment.
12:31PM I called the Registrant again. No response and left another voicemail informing the hearing will start at 1:00PM and the Panel may proceed in his absence.’
9. Mr D’Alton submitted that Mr Zakrzewski had been offered every opportunity to attend and had not. The balance between Mr Zakrzewski’s rights and the public interest in the resolution of this matter favoured proceeding in Mr Zakrzewski’s absence. There was a victim in this case who had given evidence in a trial in 2022 in regard to an incident which occurred in 2018. The victim had been called a liar by Mr Zakrzewski in the trial. A victim impact statement, available to the Panel in the bundle, illustrated the continuing consequences for her of Mr Zakrzewski’s actions. Her interest and the public interest in bringing this matter to a conclusion was a prominent factor.
10. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and paid careful regard to the factors set out by the Court of Appeal in GMC v Adeogba (2016) EWCA Civ 162. The Panel was not satisfied that Mr Zakrzewski intended to frustrate the process. However, the Panel had no information to suggest that any further delay in the case would result in Mr Zakrzewski’s attendance or in him supplying the Panel with any written submissions or reflections and evidence of remediation. The Panel paid close attention to the HCPTS Practice Note Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant. It recognised that fairness to Mr Zakrzewski was a prominent factor in its decision-making. However, without any response by Mr Zakrzewski to the phone calls and emails to him on the morning of day one, it was satisfied that there was no basis on which it could be confident that a further delay would result in Mr Zakrzewski’s participation through either attendance or written submissions.
11. Further, it was evident from the papers that the incident had a lasting and current adverse impact on the victim in this case. The Panel considered that her interests in this matter being resolved were important. Accordingly, taking all matters into account, the Panel decided to proceed in Mr Zakrzewski’s absence.
Procedure
12. The Panel decided to consider the facts (Conviction) and impairment as a single stage. Then, if appropriate and separately, to consider sanction.
Background
13. Mr Zakrzewski is a Paramedic registered with the HCPC. Mr Zakrzewski was previously employed in this capacity by North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust) until he was dismissed for gross misconduct on 13 July 2022 following a workplace disciplinary hearing conducted in Mr Zakrzewski’s absence.
14. On 13 June 2018, the Registrant was at home in shared, rented accommodation with five other tenants. One of the tenants, a female who is the victim in this case, went to the bathroom to shower. When undressed, she observed a grey coloured sock had been placed on top of a wastepaper bin. She investigated and found that the sock contained a mobile phone which had been recording images of her in the bathroom through a hole made in the sock. The victim reviewed the video which captured the Registrant positioning the device, followed by images of her undressed. The victim deleted the images in shock.
15. The victim confronted the Registrant regarding his actions. She retreated to the bedroom, followed by the Registrant, who pleaded with her not to report his actions to the police explaining that he would lose his job and that he would not repeat what he had done. The victim recorded this discussion on her mobile phone. On 14 June 2018, the Registrant pushed a note under the victim’s bedroom door again asking her not to report the matter and outlining the potential consequences for him. A transcription of the note was available to the Panel in the bundle.
16. The Trust reported the matter to the HCPC on 2 July 2019, noting that the Registrant had been suspended from work while the matter was investigated by the police. The Trust investigation was deferred until the outcome of criminal proceedings.
17. On 17 June 2022, the Registrant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of the offence of voyeurism by recording a private act. He was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and made subject to a requirement to register as a sex offender for a period of 10 years and required to pay a victim surcharge. The Registrant was then dismissed from his employment with the trust.
18. In a victim impact statement dated 22 March 2019, the victim said
‘I was really scared. Even now when I think about the incident, I feel like it could happen again. The incident left me feeling suspicious of people, and I’m not sure who I can trust. I struggle to explain all of the emotions I feel about this incident and I feel it difficult to relax.’
‘I felt I had no option but to move from where I was living. This added to my stress as I had no idea of the people I was going to be living with.’
‘It not only affected me emotionally, but it also affected my job. I was not able to, and I wasn’t sleeping for a long time after the incident. I was constantly worrying. Just having to write this statement has caused all of the feelings to come back.’
19. The Panel has seen the Certificate of Conviction at Manchester Crown Court which records that on 17 June 2022, Mr Zakrzewski was convicted of the offences that are set out in the Allegation. Mr Zakrzewski was sentenced on that date as follows:
i. 9 months imprisonment;
ii. Sign the Sex Offenders Register for ten years;
iii. Subject to a sexual harm prevent order for 7 years;
iv. Ordered to pay a Victim Surcharge of £140.
Sentencing remarks by the Recorder at Manchester Crown Court
20. On 17 June 2002 the Recorder said in sentencing remarks:
‘… In your own words. This was, and I think I made a direct quote from your evidence, a disgusting thing to do and it should be punished. That is one of the few truthful things in my opinion you said during the course of your evidence.’
‘You accused [the victim] of lying about what she had found. It is quite clear from the jury’s verdict that they have determined that you in fact were the liar.’
‘There was also clearly some thought put into how to achieve the images that you were seeking. You put a hole into a sock strategically, putting the camera phone inside, then putting an elastic band around it all to hold it in place.’
‘…it was within your gift to foreshorten this process by pleading guilty at a much earlier stage in the face of overwhelming evidence. You are entitled to your trial. You had your trial. The net result of that is that there is no credit forthcoming to you.’
‘I viewed [the victim] as she was giving her evidence and in my opinion, having viewed her, there is still a significant impact upon her from the actions that you undertook.… because of what you did. She had to move address, she has experienced or had experienced sleeping issues and difficulties at work.’
‘Having been caught red-handed. You did everything that you could to persuade her (the victim), not to take the matter forward.’
‘… [you were] a trained Paramedic and a valuable individual, no doubt doing good work within the community. That makes the commission of this offence all the more surprising and perhaps given the position of trust within the community that you held, all the more despicable.’
Submissions made as to the facts [conviction] and impairment
21. The Panel heard and considered the submissions of Mr D’Alton on behalf of the HCPC in respect of the facts [Conviction] and impairment. In brief summary he submitted as follows;
• The Conviction as laid out in the particulars of the Allegation are proved by the Certificate of Conviction.
• That in the circumstances of this case the Panel was entitled to conclude that Mr Zakrzewski’s present fitness to practise is impaired.
Private component
22. Mr D’Alton submitted that the absence of any evidence made available by Mr Zakrzewski of insight, reflection, remediation, and recognition of the impact of his actions on the victim, there was a risk of repetition. In this context, Mr D’Alton noted that Mr Zakrzewski’s duties as a Paramedic would bring him into contact with vulnerable persons often in very vulnerable situations.
Public component
23. Mr D’Alton submitted that public confidence in the profession and the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made; consequently, the public component was also engaged.
24. Mr D’Alton referred to the decision in the case of The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) and to the Standards of Conduct referred to below.
25. Mr D’Alton submitted that the Panel should find impairment with reference to both the personal and the public component.
Mr Zakrzewski
26. There were no submissions for or on behalf of Mr Zakrzewski.
27. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to Facts [Conviction] and Impairment.
28. The Panel was aware that on matters of fact the burden of proof in relation to finding of facts rests on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil one, namely on the balance of probabilities. The decision is informed by the HCPTS Practice Note Conviction and Caution Allegations.
29. A finding of impairment is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement and is informed by the HCPTS Practice Note Fitness to Practise Impairment.
Decision on Facts
30. Having considered all the evidence that it has received and the submissions that it has heard, the Panel makes the following findings;
With regard to Particular 1 of the Allegation - Proved.
31. In coming to the conclusion, the Panel considered that the HCPC has proved the facts of the conviction, the Panel has seen and read the Certificate of Conviction. This is conclusive evidence of the conviction. Mr Zakrzewski, throughout the police investigation and trial, denied the offence and insisted on the victim being cross-examined at trial. He admitted the offence only before he was sentenced. The offending conduct has had a significant and lasting harmful impact on the victim.
Decision on Grounds
32. 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,”.
33. The Panel was satisfied that the grounds on which a finding of impairment might be made were established in Mr Zakrzewski’s case.
Decision on Impairment
34. The Panel next considered whether by reason of the conviction, Mr Zakrzewski’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel recognised that as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note Fitness to Practise Impairment, there are two components of impairment,
• the personal component to the Registrant and
• the public component taking into account the wider public interest in the continued trust and confidence in the profession.
35. The Panel held in mind that what is to be assessed is Mr Zakrzewski’s current fitness to practise. In considering this issue, the Panel considered and applied the principles stated by Mrs Justice Cox in the case of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council; Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 [Admin]. The Panel also had regard to the observations of Mr Justice Silber in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin). In particular, the Panel considered whether there was a risk that Mr Zakrzewski would in the future act in the manner established by the conviction. The Panel also considered whether public confidence in the profession, in the HCPC as its regulator and the need to maintain proper standards of conduct, would be prejudiced if a finding of current impairment were not made. The Panel has also had regard to the case of Fleischmann.
36. The Panel accepted that by reason of the conviction and the facts that led to those convictions, Mr Zakrzewski is in breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance, and ethics (2016 edition) which provides:
‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession’
and of Standard 3.1 of Proficiency for Paramedics (2018) which provides:
‘Understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct’
37. The Panel concluded that Mr Zakrzewski’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the conviction. Its reasons include the following.
38. The Panel had no material to suggest that Mr Zakrzewski has accepted the harm he has caused to his victim by his conduct.
39. Mr Zakrzewski appears to be focussed entirely on the personal consequences for him. His application for an adjournment was based on the potential for him to find work and nothing was said in regard to expressing his wish to recognise and engage with the issues in this case.
40. Mr Zakrzewski had not attended this hearing nor had he submitted any reflection or statement in which he acknowledges the harm to the public which arises from his actions. He does not, for instance, express any understanding that the public or their loved ones might be reluctant to be treated by a Paramedic in circumstances where they are vulnerable, in their own homes and in a state of undress.
41. The Panel concluded that there is a risk that Mr Zakrzewski will again act in a way which disregarded the criminal law and basic decency in pursuit of his sexual predilections.
42. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel had in mind the sentencing remarks of the Recorder.
43. The Panel was concerned by the fact that Mr Zakrzewski appeared to have shown no remorse and contrition. The Panel considered that Mr Zakrzewski had displayed no insight into the gravity and consequences of his offences.
44. The Panel kept in mind that Mr Zakrzewski’s profession of a Paramedic would inevitably bring him into contact with patients often in very vulnerable circumstances.
45. Further, the Panel concluded that for all the reasons that are set out above, an informed member of the public, aware of all the circumstances of this case and of the factors that have been identified by the Panel, would consider that a finding of impairment is necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the profession, in its regulator and in order to preserve and uphold proper standards within the profession. In the opinion of the Panel, an informed member of the public would be gravely concerned if a finding of impairment in respect of Mr Zakrzewski were not made.
46. For the reasons set out above, the Panel has concluded that Mr Zakrzewski’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction. This finding is with reference to both the personal and the public component.
Day two
47. Mr Zakrzewski attended when the hearing resumed on day two. The determination to date was handed down.
Application to hear part of the hearing in private
48. It became apparent that issues of health and private family matters relating to Mr Zakrzewski may be raised during the hearing or in the written determination to follow. Accordingly, Mr D’Alton invited the Panel to consider going into private session if and when any such matters were raised. Mr Zakrzewski supported the application.
49. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that, although the general rule is that hearings are to be held in public, it is open to a Panel to go into private session when dealing with matters relating to the health or private life of a registrant. The Panel decided that when, and if, such matters were raised they would be heard in private in order to protect the private life of Mr Zakrzewski.
Application to adjourn
50. Second, Mr Zakrzewski explained that he spoke English as a second language. He required the assistance of a language interpreter in order to allow him to participate effectively in his hearing. The matters under review at the sanction stage, informed by the determination already handed down, were complex in nature. Mr Zakrzewski said that he was unable to understand sufficiently to support a fair hearing without a language interpreter. Mr Zakrzewski pointed out that a language interpreter had been provided to him at his criminal trial.
51. Mr D’Alton, on behalf of the HCPC opposed the application by Mr Zakrzewski. Mr D’Alton said that Mr Zakrzewski already had been afforded a substantial period of time in which to engage with the hearing but had not until day two. Mr Zakrzewski had not explained what productive steps he would take in advancing his case if the matter were to be adjourned.
52. Mr D’Alton explained the substantial costs that would fall on the HCPC as a result of any adjournment including dealing with important ancillary administrative matters. A delay would be unlikely to assist Mr Zakrzewski but would instead probably further exacerbate the adverse impact that the process may have, without any real prospect of matters being further advanced by a delay.
53. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Panel again paid close attention to the factors derived from the case of Picton set out in the HCPTS Practice Note Postponement and Adjournment of Proceedings. The Panel carefully weighed the factors including the potential impact on the victim in not resolving this matter in day two of the hearing.
54. The Panel recognised that the relevant Practice Note stated,
‘A Panel must exercise its discretion judicially. The crucial factor is that the registrant is entitled to a fair hearing, but the convenience of the parties or their representatives is not sufficient reason for an adjournment.’
55. The Panel noted that further delays may exacerbate the adverse impact that these proceedings may have on Mr Zakrzewski, and that there was the prospect that matters may not be further advanced unless Mr Zakrzewski engaged in a meaningful way.
56. However, the Panel determined that the crucial factor in this application was the need to ensure that Mr Zakrzewski could understand proceedings and participate effectively in advancing his case at the sanction stage. A language interpreter is not a matter of convenience but bears directly on the rights of all parties to a fair and effective hearing. Taken in conjunction with what Mr Zakrzewski had said about his ability to apply himself to the task facing him today, the Panel decided that fairness required that it agree to the application to adjourn.
57. The Panel recognised that this might result in a potentially lengthy delay and may have additional costs to the HCPC which could have been avoided had Mr Zakrzewski taken steps to both engage and to secure a language interpreter earlier.
58. The Panel would wish to emphasise to Mr Zakrzewski that he must now take matters forward purposefully so as to be ready to participate when the hearing resumes.
59. The Panel accordingly adjourned the hearing. No further applications were made by Mr D’Alton on behalf of the HCPC or by Mr Zakrzewski on his own behalf.
Resumed Hearing 13 October 2023
Preliminary Matters
Service
60. The notice of this reconvened hearing (the Notice of Hearing) was sent by email to Mr Zakrzewski on 17 July 2023. The Notice of Hearing contained the date and time of the hearing and that it would be conducted remotely by video conference. The panel was provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and a Certificate of Service.
61. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel determined that the Notice of Hearing had been served effectively.
Proceeding in Absence
62. Mr Zakrewski was not present when the hearing reconvened. Ms Collins applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of Mr Zakrzewski under Rule 11 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) Rules 2003 (the Rules). She referred the Panel to the case of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5.
63. Ms Collins referred the Panel to an email from the Registrant to the HCPC dated 4 October 2023 in which he stated that:
‘Unfortunately I won’t be able to take part in the hearing – I have miraculously found a job…and I’m not entitled to take days off. I don’t want to lose this job. It’s very important to me and to my existence. What else can I do? I know I can’t work as a paramedic. I don’t have any new documents either.’
64. Ms Collins submitted that Mr Zakrzewski had been offered every opportunity to attend and had not done so. She submitted that Mr Zakrzewski had not sought an adjournment and if the Panel considered that the words ‘what else can I do?’ in his email constituted a request for an adjournment then the HCPC opposed this. Ms Collins submitted that it was in the public interest to proceed in Mr Zakrzewski’s absence and for the hearing to be concluded.
65. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. He referred it to GMC v Adeogba (2016) EWCA Civ 162 and the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant.
66. The Panel determined that during day 2 of the hearing, Mr Zakrzewski had been fully made aware and understood that he could seek an adjournment of a hearing. The Panel concluded that the comments in his email, dated 4 October 2023, did not constitute an application for an adjournment. The Panel noted that Mr Zakrzewski had been informed of the date of today’s hearing on 17 July 2023 and had not contacted the HCPC prior to his email of 4 October 2023. The Panel considered that an adjournment was unlikely to result in Mr Zakrzewski attending on another occasion. The Panel noted that there had been no engagement since the conclusion of the part heard hearing on 29 - 30 June 2023; the reasons given for non-attendance today were principally the same reasons given for non-attendance. The Panel determined it was in the public interest that this hearing should be concluded without any further delay.
Decision on Sanction
67. Ms Collins adopted her written submissions in relation to sanction.
68. In her written submissions, Ms Collins submitted that the HCPC took a ‘neutral’ position on what was the appropriate sanction and this was a matter for the Panel. She referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy, the principles set out therein and the approach it was suggested that a Panel should take to considering sanction.
69. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel might consider that Mr Zakrzewski having no previous fitness to practice matters could be considered a mitigating factor.
70. However, in relation to aggravating factors, Ms Collins submitted that the Panel might consider that the aggravating factors were:
i)The Registrant pleading with the victim not to inform others of his behaviour both verbally and by letter.
ii) The victim reported emotional distress as a result of the Registrant's conduct. Effects included lack of sleep, feeling worried and affecting her work.
iii) The Registrant felt it necessary to move address as a result of the Registrant's conduct.
iv) There was significant planning by the Registrant to commit this offence in terms of set up.
71. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel might conclude that Mr Zakrzewski failed to demonstrate any remediation. She stated that neither the HCPC nor the Panel had been made aware of any form of remediation by Mr Zakrzewski. In particular, he had not evidenced any counselling courses or self-reflection.
72. Ms Collins further submitted that the Panel might also conclude that Mr Zakrzewski had failed to demonstrate any insight and that lack of insight gave rise to a risk of repetition of similar behaviour. She referred the Panel to paragraph 51 of the Sanctions Policy where it was stated that if a Registrant lacked insight, failed to express remorse or apologise, the Registrant might pose a high risk to service users.
73. Ms Collins referred the Panel to the Sanctions Policy in respect of ‘Serious Cases’.
74. Ms Collins also referred the Panel to paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy in relation to criminal convictions and cautions which states:
‘Where a Registrant has been convicted of a serious 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 until that sentence has been satisfactory completed’.
75. Ms Collins asked the Panel to take into account that although Mr Zakrzewski had served his custodial sentence he is still subject to registration on the Sex Offenders Register under the Sexual Offenders Act 2003, for a period of 10 years.
76. Ms Collins submitted that the Panel might consider that to take no action or impose a caution would not be appropriate. She further submitted that conditions of practice would only be appropriate where a Registrant was committed to resolving the concerns raised and conditions of practice were not suitable where serious failings existed or the deficiency was not capable of being remedied.
77. Ms Collins also submitted that a Suspension Order was only appropriate in cases where a Registrant had insight and was likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.
78. Ms Collins submitted that a Striking Off Order was likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns were such that a lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. She submitted that any sanction should have a deterrent effect on other Registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
79. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and that the Panel should act proportionately and any order should be the least restrictive that would suffice to protect the public and/or is otherwise in the public interest.
80. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Collins, all relevant documentation before it and its prior decisions.
81. The Panel first considered mitigating and aggravating factors.
82. In relation to mitigating factors, the Panel concluded that the only mitigating factor was that Mr Zarzewski had no previous regulatory concerns prior to this hearing.
83. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors:
(a) The Registrant had pleaded with his victim not to inform others
(b) The Registrant’s victim had suffered emotional harm and distress, including lack of sleep, worry and effects on her work.
(c) The Registrant’s actions were premediated and required significant planning.
(d) The Registrant has failed to express any regret or remorse.
(e) The Registrant had failed to demonstrate any insight.
84. The Panel determined in its findings on impairment that:
42.The Panel concluded that there is a risk that Mr Zakrzewski will again act in a way which disregarded the criminal law and basic decency in pursuit of his sexual predilections.
43. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel had in mind the sentencing remarks of the Recorder.
44. The Panel was concerned by the fact that Mr Zakrzewski appeared to have shown no remorse and contrition. The Panel considered that Mr Zakrzewski had displayed no insight into the gravity and consequences of his offences.
85. The Panel had regard to the Sanctions Policy and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel was aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the wider public interest, which includes upholding standards within the profession, together with maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.
86. The Panel determined that Mr Zakrzewski’s actions constituted sexual misconduct as defined in the Sanctions Policy, which states:
‘76. Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. It includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating someone. The misconduct can be directed towards:
• service users, carers and family members;
• colleagues; and
• members of the public.
77. Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction. Where it deviates from this approach, it should provide clear reasoning.’
87. The Panel further took into account paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy that 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.’
88. The Panel determined that although Mr Zakrzewski has served his custodial sentence, as he remains on the Sex Offenders Register and therefore considers that paragraph 82 was applicable to its consideration of an appropriate sanction.
89. The Panel considered to take no further action would be wholly inappropriate given the seriousness of the facts found proved and the conviction.
90. For similar reasons the Panel concluded that to impose a Caution Order would be inappropriate.
91. The Panel went on to consider imposing a Conditions of Practice Order. It noted paragraphs 106 – 109 of the Sanctions Policy. However, it concluded that due to the serious conviction and the sexual nature of the offence which occurred outside the work environment, conditions of practice could not be formulated which would adequately protect the public and the public interest.
92. The Panel therefore went on to consider imposing a Suspension Order. It took into account paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy that states:
‘121. 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 the 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 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’.
93. The Panel has determined that Mr Zakrzewski has failed to demonstrate insight or remediation. It has further determined that he has shown no remorse or regret and that there is a likelihood of repetition. There was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that Mr Zakrzewski is likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings. In these circumstances, the Panel determined that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate or address public protection and the wider public interest concerns identified.
94. The Panel therefore determined that the appropriate order was a striking off order it took into account paragraphs 130 – 132 of the Sanctions Policy that states:
130.A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving (this list is not exhaustive):
a. dishonesty (see paragraphs 56–58);
b. failure to raise concerns (see paragraphs 59–60);
c. failure to work in partnership (see paragraphs 61–62);
d. discrimination (see paragraphs 63–66);
e. abuse of professional position, including vulnerability (see paragraphs 67–75);
f. sexual misconduct (see paragraphs 76–77);
g. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children (see paragraphs 78– 79 and 87–89);
h. criminal convictions for serious offences (see paragraphs 80–92); and
i. violence (see paragraph 93).
131. 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:
a. lacks insight;
b. continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
c. is unwilling to resolve matters.
132. A striking off order has a significant impact on a registrant, and so when a panel imposes a striking off order, it should provide clear and detailed reasoning in its decision on sanction.’
95. The Panel considered that Mr Zakrzewski’s conduct was serious and a deliberate act involving sexual misconduct for which he had been convicted and remains on the Sex Offenders Register. The Panel determined that the nature and gravity of the concerns were such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession.
96. The Panel was aware that a Striking Off Order could have a significant effect on Mr Zakrzewski. However, it concluded that it was the only sanction that would address public protection and the wider public interest concerns identified.
97. The Panel therefore imposed a Striking Off Order.
Order
The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Wojciech Zakrzewski from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect
Notes
Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.
Interim Order
Application
1. Following the Panel handing down its decision to impose a Striking Off Order, Ms Collins applied for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months.
2. Ms Collins explained to the Panel that the existing Interim Order had terminated on the Panel imposing a Striking Off Order. She submitted that Mr Zakrzewski would therefore be able to practice unrestricted either during the 28 day period when he was entitled to appeal the Panel’s decision or, if the Panel’s decision is appealed, until that appeal was a determined. Ms Collins told the Panel that she therefore sought an Interim Suspension Order to cover this period.
3. Ms Collins referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, and the approach set out therein. She submitted that the Panel’s finding was a justifiable basis for the imposition of an interim order on the grounds of public protection and public interest. She further submitted that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not meet the public protection and public interest concerns identified by the Panel and therefore an Interim Suspension Order was required. Ms Collins submitted that if Mr Zakrzewski appealed the Panel decision that the determination of that appeal would take some time and she therefore sought a Suspension Order for a period of 18 months.
4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders.
Decision
5. The Panel determined that there was a clear basis for an Interim Order both on the grounds of public protection and the wider public interest due to the serious nature of its findings. The Panel further determined that public protection and the public interest concerns identified by it could not be met by an Interim Conditions of Practice Order.
6. The Panel therefore determined to impose an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001. It considered that this was necessary in order to protect members of the public and also in the public interest. The Panel considered that to do otherwise would be inconsistent with its earlier findings and would not protect the public against the risk of repetition identified. The Panel made the order for a period of 18 months to take into account the possibility of Mr Zakrzewski appealing its decision.
7. The Panel noted the impact of the interim order on Mr Zakrzewski, but it considered that it was necessary to protect the public and also in the public interest.
8. 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.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Wojciech Zakrzewski
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13/10/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |
| 29/06/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |
| 20/04/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 23/01/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 02/11/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Suspension |
| 20/06/2022 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
| 14/03/2022 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
| 16/12/2021 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Conditions of Practice |
| 04/10/2021 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |
| 02/08/2021 | Investigating Committee | Interim Order Review | Interim Conditions of Practice |