Spomenko Loncar

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel had sight of an unredacted copy of an email dated 21 July 2023 which was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address. The email gave notice of the date, time, and purpose of this hearing and that it would be conducted remotely. The Panel had sight of an email of the same date from Microsoft Outlook confirming delivery to the Registrant’s email address. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that proper notice of these proceedings had been served on the Registrant.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. Mr Jotangia applied for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, submitting that there was no compelling reason for the case to be adjourned.

3. Mr Jotangia submitted that there had been good service of the Notice of Hearing and that the HCPC’s bundle of documents had been served on the Registrant on 24 August 2022, so he was well aware of the allegations against him.

4. Mr Jotangia referred to attempts by Kingsley Napley LLP (“Kingsley Napley”), the HCPC’s external lawyers, to contact the Registrant on 1, 5, and 11 September 2023 to confirm that the Registrant had been able to download the bundle on Kingsley Napley’s Intralinks system. There had been no response from either the Registrant or his spouse. Mr Jotangia referred to correspondence between the HCPC and Kingsley Napley with the Registrant’s spouse, which had been provided to the Panel in a 10-page bundle. In response to a Panel question, Mr Jotangia said that the Kingsley Napley Intralinks system had last been accessed on 1 September 2023 from the Registrant’s registered email address, but he could not say whether this had been by the Registrant or his spouse. This was because it appeared that the Registrant had given his spouse access to his registered email address and that she had used this in some of the correspondence with Kingsley Napley. Mr Jotangia told the Panel that on 8 August 2022, the Registrant had been in contact with Kingsley Napley to confirm that he consented to electronic service of documents. The Registrant had sent a follow-up email on 24 August 2022 to Kingsley Napley asking how he should register to access the Intralinks system. Kingsley Napley had responded with instructions. There had been no further communication from the Registrant since then. Any further communication had been with his spouse.

5. Mr Jotangia acknowledged that the Registrant’s spouse had indicated on 15 August 2023 that she would not be telling the Registrant of the hearing because of what she said was his medical condition. She also said that it would be “too much” for him to attend the hearing. Mr Jotangia referred to the correspondence since then in which Kingsley Napley had tried to elicit from the Registrant’s spouse: (i) that she had the Registrant’s consent to act on his behalf so that they could discuss the case with her; (ii) up-to-date information on the Registrant’s current state of health; and (iii) whether the Registrant wished the hearing to be adjourned so that he could attend at a later date. As of the time of the hearing, Kingsley Napley had received no response.

6. Mr Jotangia submitted that it was in the general public interest to proceed with the hearing. He said that the witnesses who were due to attend had given up time to do so. He submitted that the alleged events occurred some three years ago in 2020 and that the case should not be delayed any further or allowed to drag on. The allegations related to a very specific time period from 23 June 2020 to 7 July 2020. Mr Jotangia submitted that no compelling reason had been provided by the Registrant for his non-attendance and there was no explanation for his non-engagement with the HCPC since August 2022.

7. Mr Jotangia submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend.

Decision

8. The Panel received and accepted legal advice before considering whether to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel exercised particular care and caution in reaching its decision and considered the various matters set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. In considering these, the Panel balanced fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the wider public interest and bore in mind that the HCPTS Practice Note states:

“Public protection through the effective regulation of registrants is the overriding objective against which all of the other factors have to be balanced. The fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against registrants is fundamental to that objective. Hearings should be adjourned only where there is a compelling reason to do so that overrides the key objective of public protection”.

9. Looking first at the nature and circumstances of the Registrant’s absence, the Panel had sight of correspondence where the Registrant’s spouse was using his registered email address. The Panel therefore inferred from this that he had given his spouse access to that account via his password and had permitted her to use it. The Panel also inferred that the Registrant’s spouse was acting on his behalf in any communication with the HCPC or Kingsley Napley relating to these proceedings.

10. The Panel concluded that the HCPC cannot control who a registrant may permit to access their registered email address. However, it noted from the correspondence it had seen that the Registrant may be unaware of this hearing. The Registrant’s spouse indicated that due to his medical condition, she would not be telling him about it. The Registrant’s spouse also made clear that neither she nor the Registrant would be attending this hearing and that the Registrant had no witnesses to call.

11. The Panel saw from the correspondence that Kingsley Napley made several attempts to obtain confirmation from the Registrant that he had given his spouse permission to talk to the HCPC about his case and that she acted on his behalf. In an email dated 2 August 2023, which was sent to both the Registrant’s registered email address and his spouse’s email address, Kingsley Napley specifically asked:

“You have indicated that [the Registrant] … will not attend any hearing. This raises two issues, firstly the question of whether [the Registrant] wants to attend on a future date …
Can I ask that you please undertake the following:

1. Get confirmation from [the Registrant] that we can discuss this case with you

2. Provide us with a detailed update regarding his medical situation

3. Confirm whether he wants to attend the hearing when he is well enough.”

12. The Panel noted from the correspondence bundle that as there was no response to this email, Kingsley Napley sent two further emails, dated 18 August 2023 and 23 August 2023, to the Registrant’s spouse’s email address asking for a response. There had been no further correspondence from either the Registrant or his spouse. The Panel also noted that registrants are required to engage with the regulatory process and that a hearing may be adjourned where there is a good reason, such as ill-health. In this case, there had been no engagement from the Registrant himself since August 2022, over a year ago. No up-to-date medical evidence had been produced by or on behalf of the Registrant to support an application to adjourn on medical, or indeed any other, grounds. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend this hearing.

13. The Panel considered whether an adjournment might secure the Registrant’s attendance on a later date. It noted that the Registrant had not engaged with the process since August 2022. His spouse, who appeared to be acting on his behalf, had failed to respond to a specific request by Kingsley Napley to indicate whether the Registrant wanted an adjournment so that he could attend when he was well enough to do so. In light of the non-engagement of the Registrant, and this failure by his spouse to respond to a straightforward request as to an adjournment, the Panel concluded that it was unlikely that adjourning the matter now would result in the Registrant’s attendance at a later date. In the absence of any current information about the Registrant’s health, it was unclear how long the case might have to be adjourned for. The Panel had no confidence that such information would be forthcoming and concluded that any adjournment was likely to be open-ended. The Panel considered that this would be most unsatisfactory. In addition, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s spouse stated the hearing was “free to continue” in his absence.

14. The Panel noted that the allegations in this case relate to events which occurred over three years ago and that there were nine witnesses who the HCPC intended to call to give live evidence. These witnesses were largely former colleagues, some of whom still work for Alliance Medical (“AML”). They were scheduled to appear on specific dates and at specific times during this hearing, and no doubt work schedules had been arranged to accommodate this. The Panel had some minor concerns that any further delay would affect the memories of these witnesses, since the allegations related to events which took place just over three years ago.

15. The Panel accepted that there would be some disadvantage to the Registrant by not being present and participating in the hearing, but considered that this was outweighed by the public interest in proceedings being heard when scheduled, especially where there was the potential for any delay to affect the memories of witnesses. The Panel would be careful to consider all matters which were in the Registrant’s favour throughout the proceedings. It noted that there was some information in the HCPC’s exhibits which set out the Registrant’s response to some of the matters raised in the allegation when the concerns regarding his conduct were first raised with him by his employer.

16. The Panel was satisfied that there was a clear public interest in substantive hearings proceeding on the date on which they are listed to be heard unless there is any compelling reason to adjourn. The Panel concluded that, in the absence of any application for an adjournment on grounds of ill-health, there was no such compelling reason in this case.

17. The Panel therefore decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to amend the Allegation

18. Mr Jotangia applied to amend the Allegation in a number of respects, all of which were to better reflect the evidence which the HCPC intended to call. He submitted that none of the amendments caused any prejudice to the Registrant, who had been given notice of them on 23 June 2022 and had not indicated that he objected to any of them.

19. The Panel considered each of the proposed amendments separately. It received and accepted legal advice that it may make amendments provided that these do not prejudice the Registrant and that there is no unfairness to him.

20. In relation to Particular 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), the Panel found that the proposed amendments simply moved the words “asked patients” from the stem to the sub-particulars. The proposed amendment to Particular 1(d) was to make it clear that the patient concerned was female and reflected the evidence which the HCPC expected to call. The Panel noted that the proposed amendments to add sub-particulars 1(e) and 1(f) were new aspects of how it is alleged the Registrant did not respect patient dignity, and that the Registrant had been on notice of these since 23 June 2022. The proposed new sub-particulars reflected the evidence the HCPC expected to call.

21. The Panel decided to grant the application to amend in relation to Particular 1. It was satisfied that none of the proposed amendments to Particular 1 prejudiced the Registrant or were unfair to him. In reaching its decision, the Panel noted that the Registrant had been on notice of all the proposed amendments to Particular 1 for well over a year now and had not objected to any of them.

22. In relation to Particular 2, the Panel concluded that the proposed amendment, which identified the social media platform involved in this allegation, could be made without there being any prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant.

23. In relation to Particular 3, the Panel noted that the proposed amendments included clarifying the date on which some of the alleged inappropriate behaviour took place, the gender of the colleagues concerned, and to whom a certain word was addressed. The Panel concluded that the proposed amendments could be made without there being any prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant.

24. In relation to Particular 4, the stem alleged that the Registrant did not accept guidance from training leads and then set out a variety of examples of this. The original Particular 4(b) did not amount to an example of the stem. The Panel accepted that this should therefore be deleted and the remaining sub-particulars re-numbered accordingly. The other proposed amendments clarified dates, which training lead was involved, and where the events took place, and better reflected the evidence the HCPC expected to call. The Panel was satisfied that these amendments could be made without prejudicing or causing the Registrant any unfairness. The HCPC sought to add Particular 4(d), a new example of the Registrant not accepting guidance from the training leads. The Panel noted that the Registrant had had notice of this proposed amendment since June 2022 and had not objected to it. The Panel concluded that the proposed Particular 4(d) could be added and it was satisfied that it did not prejudice or cause the Registrant any unfairness.

25. In relation to Particular 7, the proposed amendment to delete the words “sexually motivated” and replace them with the word “sexual” was to reflect the HCPC’s case. The further proposed amendments were to clarify in which respects in the sub-particulars of Particular 3 and Particular 4 the Registrant’s conduct was alleged to have been “sexual”. The Panel decided to approve the proposed amendments to Particular 7. It noted that the Registrant had been on notice of these since June 2022 and had not objected to any of them. It also considered that none of them would prejudice the Registrant or cause any unfairness.

26. The Panel therefore granted the application to amend in full.

Further amendments made at the conclusion of the HCPC’s case

27. At the conclusion of the HCPC’s case, further amendments were made by the Panel. No notice of these had been given to the Registrant but as they were purely to correct typographical errors, the Panel was satisfied that they did not prejudice or cause any unfairness to the Registrant. In Particular 1(d) an unnecessary word “to” was deleted, and in Particular 7 references to Particular 4 “(e) and/or (f)” were deleted as no such sub-particulars existed.

28. The Panel also considered an issue raised by the Legal Assessor, namely whether Particular 7 should be considered in relation to Particular 2, on grounds that if the Panel was to find Particular 2(a) proved Particular 7 would add nothing to the concern regarding the Registrant’s conduct, as the Panel would have found the content to be “sexually inappropriate”. However, if the Panel was to find only Particular 2(b) proved, it would be perverse for the Panel to have to decide whether Particular 2(b) was “sexual” when considering Particular 7.

29. Mr Jotangia agreed that Particular 2 should be deleted from the matters which the Panel had to consider under Particular 7. He conceded that as originally drafted, Particular 7 added nothing in relation to Particular 2.

30. The Panel approved the deletion of Particular 2 from the list of Particulars to be considered under Particular 7. It was satisfied that this caused the Registrant no prejudice or unfairness.

Conducting part of the case in private

31. During Panel questions of the first witness, NG, a matter relating to the Registrant’s health arose. At the invitation of the Panel, Mr Jotangia applied for those parts of the case where matters relating to the Registrant’s health were raised to be heard in private in order to protect his private life.

32. In reaching its decision, the Panel had in mind the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”. It also received and accepted legal advice.

33. The Panel was aware that these proceedings should be heard in public unless there are exceptional circumstances which would dictate that either the whole or part of the hearing should be conducted in private. One exceptional circumstance which might arise is where matters concerning the personal life or health of a witness or registrant arise, and in order to protect their private life the hearing should be conducted in private. The Panel considered whether in this case there were any such exceptional circumstances.

34. The Panel was satisfied that any evidence relating to the Registrant’s health would be heard in private so as to protect his private life. The rest of the hearing would be conducted in public.

Application to adduce hearsay evidence

35. Mr Jotangia applied to adduce the evidence of NB, who had been expected to give evidence before the Panel. The grounds of his application were that NB was on sick leave from her work in the HCPC Registration Department and was unavailable to give evidence to the Panel. Mr Jotangia submitted that this was a good and cogent reason for her non-attendance. He also submitted that her evidence was likely to be reliable as it related to what were essentially administrative matters, it was not multiple hearsay, and there was no motive or any reason to suspect that NB might have fabricated it. Ms Jotangia submitted that it could, therefore, be admitted as reliable evidence.

36. Mr Jotangia accepted that NB’s evidence was the sole and decisive evidence of Particular 5. Mr Jotangia submitted that any unfairness to the Registrant in admitting NB’s statement as hearsay evidence could be mitigated by the Panel when deciding what weight to give to it. He also acknowledged that the Registrant was unaware of the application as he was not present at the hearing.

37. Mr Jotangia reminded the Panel that it was entitled to receive hearsay evidence under section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003. He referred to the various factors which the Panel should consider which were found in the case of Bonhoeffer v GMC [2011] EWHC 1585 (Admin), which had been confirmed in the case of Thorneycroft v NMC [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin).

Decision

38. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. It decided to admit the statement of NB as hearsay evidence. In reaching its decision the Panel reminded itself of NB’s evidence and noted that it covered administrative matters within her role in the HCPC’s Registration Department. The Panel was satisfied that there was no reason or motive for NB to fabricate her evidence, which related to checking the HCPC’s systems within her department and reporting on what she found or did not find. The Panel considered that it was likely therefore to be reliable evidence. The Panel accepted that there was a good and cogent reason on health grounds for NB’s unavailability. Although no medical evidence had been produced, it was clear that the witness was currently on sick leave from the HCPC.

39. The Panel noted that Particular 5 alleged that the Registrant did not report his suspension to the HCPC and considered that this was a straightforward factual allegation. It did not require proof of any particular state of mind and the Panel would be able to consider NB’s evidence, the relevant Standard from the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, and any other relevant document within the exhibits. The Panel also noted that NB was the sole and decisive witness to Particular 5. The Panel considered the potential impact on the Registrant were Particular 5 ultimately to be found proved. It did not consider that such a finding in itself would result in grave and serious consequences to the Registrant’s career and/or his reputation. However, the Panel noted that Particular 6 alleges that the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 5 was dishonest. The Panel was satisfied that for any registrant facing an allegation of dishonesty, the potential consequences for their careers and/or reputations are grave and serious. The Panel took this factor into account in reaching its decision.

40. The Panel also considered whether there were safeguards which could mitigate against any unfairness to the Registrant in admitting NB’s evidence. Her hearsay evidence would not be tested by cross-examination. This was because the Registrant was not present and was not represented. One of the consequences of the Registrant being absent at this hearing was that he was not on notice of this application. The Panel took the view that while this was unfortunate, it was one of the consequences where a registrant is absent. The Panel therefore considered what steps might be taken within the hearing to mitigate this. Where there were matters the Panel might have wished to be clarified or explained, it would be able to reflect this absence of clarification by the weight, if any, which it attached to NB’s evidence. The Panel would, at all times, have in mind that it was for the HCPC to prove its case and that there was no burden of proof on the Registrant.

Background

41. Between 15 June 2020 and 13 August 2020, the Registrant was employed as a Radiographer by AML. At the relevant time, he was in a period of six months’ probationary employment.

42. It is alleged that whilst working at Cumberland Infirmary Hospital and Darlington Memorial Hospital (“the Hospital”), the Registrant acted inappropriately on social media, failed to maintain patient dignity, made inappropriate comments to colleagues, and invaded his colleagues’ personal space. An internal investigation was completed by NG, the Registrant’s line manager. The Registrant was invited to a meeting with her on 07 August 2020 to discuss the concerns.

43. On 21 August 2020, the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC.

44. On 07 September 2020, NG made an employer’s referral to the HCPC.

45. On 06 May 2021, a panel of the Investigating Committee found that there was a case to answer regarding the Registrant’s fitness to practise and referred an Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

Submission of no case to answer on Particular 5

46. At the conclusion of the HCPC’s case, the Panel invited Mr Jotangia to address it on the sufficiency of the evidence in relation to Particular 5.

47. Mr Jotangia submitted that there was sufficient evidence of a case to answer in respect of Particular 5. He referred the Panel to the hearsay evidence of NB, who had found no evidence of any notification by the Registrant of his suspension when she searched the HCPC’s Registration Department systems. Mr Jotangia referred the Panel to Standard 9.5 in the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics and submitted that although the Registrant had referred himself to the HCPC, this had been some four weeks later and so not “as soon as possible”.

The Panel’s approach

48. The Panel bore in mind that the burden of proving there is a case for the Registrant to answer on the facts, statutory grounds, and/or impairment is on the HCPC. The Panel applied the civil standard of proof when considering whether there was a case to answer in respect of the allegation in Particular 5. The Panel also considered the HCPTS Practice Note “Submission of no case to answer”, Mr Jotangia’s submissions, and it received and accepted legal advice.

49. The Panel concluded that this was not a case where the HCPC had produced no evidence of Particular 5. There was some evidence in the hearsay statement of NB. The Panel therefore looked closely at the second question posed in the HCPTS Practice Note: “Is the evidence so unsatisfactory in nature that the Panel could not find the allegation or element proved?”

50. The Panel concluded that the answer to that question was in the affirmative. The Panel considered that the evidence was unsatisfactory in a number of regards.

51. The Panel had sight of documentary evidence that NG wrote to the Registrant on 9 July 2020 confirming that he had been suspended by AML on 6 July 2020. NG also wrote to the Registrant on 14 August 2020 following a Probationary Review meeting with him on 12 August 2020. In this letter, NG told the Registrant that, in light of the concerns raised at the meeting, he should refer himself to the HCPC and in effect informed him that he should do so within 7 calendar days, after which she would be submitting an employer’s referral from AML. It was after this letter that the Registrant made his self-referral.

52. The Panel could see from the self-referral form that it stated this should be sent by post or emailed to the HCPC’s Fitness to Practise Department. There was nothing in the form which stated that a registrant must also inform the HCPC’s Registration Department of a suspension.

53. The Panel also considered the wording of Standard 9.5 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics. This requires a registrant who has been suspended to inform “us … as soon as possible”. There was no information as to how this must be done or whether the reference to “us” was to a specific department of the HCPC, or any guidance as to what “as soon as possible” meant.

54. The Panel also noted that Particular 5 alleges only that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of his suspension. It does not allege, e.g., that he did not do so “as soon as possible”.

55. The Panel considered the hearsay evidence of NB, who works in the HCPC’s Registration department. She made her witness statement on 4 October 2021 and made it clear that she had searched only the HCPC’s Registration Department systems and had not found any evidence of the Registrant having notified the HCPC’s Registration Department of his suspension. The Panel noted that there was nothing in NB’s statement to explain how a registrant is required to notify the HCPC of a suspension, merely that they must do so.

56. NB also stated that she did not have access to the HCPC’s Fitness to Practise systems and that the Registrant could have notified that department of his suspension. It appeared that NB was not shown the Registrant’s self-referral document dated 28 August 2020, or asked whether this would amount to sufficient notification of suspension. The Panel noted that in Section 2 of the self-referral form, a registrant is asked to indicate which of three scenarios is applicable to them. One of these scenarios is that they have been suspended and the Registrant ticked this box. He then, as directed, completed Section 5 and set out the reasons for his suspension.

57. In her evidence, NB confirmed that when the Registrant renewed his registration for two years in January 2020, he did so online. This would have been before he had been suspended in July of that year. NB completed her witness statement before the next renewal window for Radiographers opened in late 2021, and so she could not say whether at that time, the Registrant referred to his suspension. In any event, the Panel noted that the allegation in Particular 5 was limited to not telling the HCPC of the suspension, not that the Registrant did not do so “as soon as possible”.

58. The Panel was unable to ask NB questions which might have clarified these matters. The Panel considered that while there was no reason to doubt the reliability of NB’s evidence, it was of only very limited value and it was unsatisfactory because it presented an incomplete picture of what was required of a registrant in reporting a suspension. The Panel therefore concluded that it could not attach any weight to NB’s evidence when considering if the HCPC could discharge its burden of proving Particular 5.

59. In these circumstances, the Panel decided that there was no case to answer on Particular 5. It follows that Particular 6 would fall away, as this was predicated on a finding that Particular 5 was proved.

Decision on Facts

Evidence

60. The HCPC provided the Panel with a bundle of documents for the hearing which totalled 252 pages, of which some 171 pages were exhibits in the case. The HCPC also called a number of witnesses to give evidence and relied on a production statement from CB, a Legal Assistant at Kingsley Napley, in which she produced a number of the exhibits in the HCPC bundle. The HCPC bundle included:

a. the Registrant’s self-referral form and NG’s employer’s referral form;

b. various emails from AML to the Registrant and between AML and the HCPC;

c. AML policies in relation to: Anti-bullying and Harassment; Privacy, Dignity and Respect; Social Media; Probationary Management; and Disciplinary Matters;

d. an AML Investigation Report, together with documents in support;

e. Facebook profile and posts;

f. Probation meeting notes;

g. a Senior Radiographer job description.

NG

61. The Panel heard evidence from NG, who is the Mobile Manager of AML within the Diagnostic Imaging Mobiles North Team. NG has held this position since January 2020 and her role involves managing staff and site scanning services. NG told the Panel that she did not herself interview the Registrant for the position of Senior Radiographer at AML, but she was his line manager. NG told the Panel that the Registrant joined AML on 15 June 2020, and she conducted a one-week online induction process with him during which he was required to read a number of AML’s policies, including those on Privacy, Dignity and Respect, Social Media, and Anti-Bullying and Harassment. NG said that there were also policies in place to assist staff to comply with the Covid-19 pandemic social distancing rules.

62. NG told the Panel that following his week of induction, the Registrant had been placed at the Hospital. She explained that all new members of staff are assigned a mentor to assist them with the day-to-day running of the scanner and helping them to feel settled. The Registrant had been assigned Colleague 4 as his mentor. Concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct had first been raised with NG by Colleague 4 on 23 June 2020. It was alleged that the Registrant was difficult to manage as he was failing to follow the protocols for the scanner at that site. The protocols were provided by the Radiologists and indicated how the images of the scan were to be set out. NG told the Panel that she had spoken to the Registrant by telephone and told him that he would be moved to the CT mobile scanner, which was located in the car park of the Hospital at the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”), where he would be assigned a new mentor, Colleague 6. NG said that she had not spoken to the Registrant about Colleague 4’s concerns at that time.

63. NG said that during the week commencing 28 June 2020, she had received several telephone calls from Colleague 6 raising concerns about the Registrant not respecting patient dignity. NG said that this was one of the policies the Registrant would have had access to via AML’s intranet. She said that paragraph 5.2 of the Policy states that:

“- Staff should ensure patient care actively promotes privacy and dignity and protects their modesty.
- Staff should ensure patients are protected from unwanted public view by means of curtains, screens, walls, clothes and covers.
- Staff will ensure that gowns fasten securely, provide adequate cover and are available in a wide range of sizes including extra-large. Additional garments will be made available to cover the patient where necessary e.g., walking to the toilet.
- Patients will normally be able to dress and undress privately in a separate room. Where a separate room is not available, a screen will be provided. If the examination room is being used as a changing room, privacy should be provided, for example, a blind covering any windows including windows in doors. Patients should be asked to indicate when they are ready.
- Areas used for dressing/undressing will be secure from interruption or from being overlooked.”

64. NG told the Panel that on 6 July 2020 she had received further complaints about the Registrant from Colleague 5, who had contacted her by email. Colleague 5’s concerns had mirrored those of Colleague 6 with regard to respecting patient dignity. Colleague 6 also contacted NG that day and reported that the Registrant had made several female members of staff feel uncomfortable at work as he did not respect their personal space and had been a nuisance at work by constantly saying “hello” to everyone.

65. NG explained to the Panel that she had intended to travel to the Hospital the next day to speak face-to-face with the Registrant about the concerns raised by both Colleague 5 and Colleague 6. She said she had been contacted later in the day on 6 July 2020 and asked to look at the Registrant’s Facebook page, as Colleague 5 had complained to her line manager about its content. NG said that she had looked at the Registrant’s Facebook page and that she had been shocked by the inappropriate content she had seen posted there. NG referred the Panel to AML’s Social Media Policy which states, at paragraph 13, that employees must not post “images that are inappropriate or links to inappropriate content”.

66. In answer to Panel questions, NG said that it was apparent from the Registrant’s profile page on Facebook that he was employed by AML, but she did not recall it saying that he was employed as a Radiographer. NG said that she recalled there being some personal posts but that these had been minimal when compared with the number of other inappropriate posts. NG said that the Registrant had not initially taken these posts down from his Facebook page, but that later he had changed his settings so that his profile was private rather than public. NG told the Panel that she discussed the Registrant’s situation with her manager, VM, and together they had spoken to the Registrant via a Teams call and informed him that he was suspended. NG, when asked by the Panel about the Registrant’s understanding of the English language, said that she could not recall that the Registrant had any problem understanding it.

67. On 7 July 2020, NG spoke to the Registrant and asked him about the various matters of concern which had been raised by his colleagues. The Registrant accepted that he had completed his training on privacy and dignity. When asked by NG to explain his interaction with several female patients and whether he thought this was respectful and maintained patient dignity, the Registrant told her that in his previous role it was common for a patient to undress without a screen to protect their dignity. NG told the Panel that when told of the complaints received about his Facebook content, the Registrant had told her he did not often use Facebook and that it was his wife who would often post things on his page. NG produced handwritten notes of the meeting which had been made at the time by a colleague, RS. NG said that the Registrant had signed the last page of the handwritten notes but had later informed her that he no longer agreed with them, as he believed she and RS had added content on those pages which he had not signed. NG told the Panel that the handwritten notes had not been altered by anyone and that they were an accurate reflection of the meeting.

68. Following the Registrant’s suspension, NG interviewed a number of his colleagues and became aware of other concerns regarding how the Registrant interacted with his colleagues. NG said the Registrant would have been aware of how he should interact around colleagues as during his induction she had provided him with the AML Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy. This Policy states, at paragraph 5.1, that bullying can include “humour at an individual’s expense”, and in paragraph 5.2 sets out what AML considers to be harassment in the workplace. This includes:

“Behaviour which any reasonable person would realise would be likely to offend will be harassment without the recipient having to make it clear in advance that behaviour of that type is not acceptable to him or her. Examples of harassment include:

• Unwanted physical contact – such as unnecessary touching, patting, pinching or brushing against another employee’s body, assault, coercing sexual favours, physical threats, insulting or abusive behaviour or gestures.

• Unwanted verbal conduct – such as unwelcome advances, patronising titles or nicknames, proposition or remarks, innuendos, lewd comments, banter or abusive language, which refers to a person’s sex, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, age, disability or sexuality.”

69. NG told the Panel that following her investigation into concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct, he was required to attend a final probation review meeting. This was held on 12 August 2020 via Teams. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the Registrant an opportunity to say something about the events that had occurred. She said that at the meeting, the Registrant accused AML of breaching his human rights and stated that he had freedom of speech to post what he liked on Facebook. NG also said that the Registrant had not denied that he would leave patients without a gown and had explained that at his previous job processes were different and you could request a patient to remove clothing without first introducing yourself and offering a gown.

Colleague 5

70. Colleague 5 is a Diagnostic Radiographer currently employed at St James’ Hospital, Leeds. At the relevant time, she was working on the North Mobiles Team for AML as a Senior Radiographer. In that role her responsibilities included being the CT Training Lead for the North Mobiles and was based in the CT mobile scanner which was located in the car park of the Hospital at the Trust.

71. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she met the Registrant for the first time on 1 July 2020 when they had worked a 12-hour shift together. Colleague 5 was a training lead on that shift. She said that her initial concerns were about how he conducted himself around patients and the lack of dignity he provided to them. She said that he would not provide patients with gowns when they undressed and had herself witnessed the Registrant on several occasions requesting that patients remove their trousers and tops without providing them with a gown. Colleague 5 said that this had occurred with both male and female patients. Colleague 5 confirmed, in response to Panel questions, that there were always plenty of gowns available. She said that between 20 and 25 patients had been scanned during the shift and she did not recall any of those dealt with by the Registrant being offered a gown by him. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she had confronted the Registrant about the need to provide gowns a handful of times during the day and had informed him that not doing so was unacceptable. Colleague 5 said that each time she confronted the Registrant she would remind him that he must maintain patient dignity and that he could not request a patient to undress without providing them with a gown. Colleague 5 said that the Registrant did not seem to be bothered by her concerns and that his response had been to laugh at her.

72. Colleague 5 recalled one occasion when she had entered the scanning room to provide a gown for a patient who had been left standing in the scanning room without any clothing on and her top off after the Registrant had requested that she remove her bra. This was one of the occasions when Colleague 5 said she had confronted the Registrant about his conduct.

73. Colleague 5 explained the set-up of the mobile scanner unit. This consisted of a scanning room and a control room. Between the scanning room and the control room was a door and a separate window. There was a roller blind on the window which was closed when patients were undressing in the scanner room in order to maintain their privacy and dignity. Colleague 5 said that when a patient was undressing, the door to the scanner room was also kept closed. Colleague 5 said that the Registrant would often leave the door open when he left the scanning room and the patient undressed. He would also fail to close the blind and this meant that any members of staff in the control room would be able to see the patient changing. Colleague 5 said that every time the Registrant left the door and/or the blind open when a patient was changing, she would tell him that this was not acceptable. She would then go and close the door and pull the blind down for the patient.

74. Colleague 5 also explained that once a patient had changed the Radiographer was then required to enter the scanning room, pulling the blind up, leaving the door open as they entered. This was to ensure that someone else in the control room could always see what was going on in the scanning room. In this way, Radiographers avoided opening themselves up to accusations. Colleague 5 told the Panel that on more than one occasion the Registrant had kept the door closed and the blind down when alone in the scanning room with female patients. Colleague 5 could not say how many times this had occurred but did say that she recalled going into the scanning room and reminding him about this requirement.

75. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she noticed that any female patient who came in for a scan on that day was asked by the Registrant if they were wearing a bra before he introduced himself to them. Colleague 5 could not recall if she had confronted the Registrant about this at the time. Colleague 5 referred to Paragraph 5.3 of the AML Privacy, Dignity and Respect Policy, which states that staff should “introduce themselves on initial contact by name and role to patients and relatives”.

76. Colleague 5 told the Panel that during the shift, she had been discussing social distancing with another colleague (Colleague 2) when the Registrant had interrupted their conversation and referred to something about social distancing which he had on his Facebook page but had said that it was not appropriate for work. When she had asked the Registrant what he meant by this, he had laughed and winked at her. Colleague 5 said that Colleague 2 later opened the Registrant’s Facebook profile, which was public to view. Colleague 5 said that she was stunned and sickened by what she saw there and by the fact that the Registrant had been sharing pictures which were very inappropriate.

77. Colleague 5 also told the Panel of her concerns about how the Registrant interacted with colleagues. She said he would invade personal space by leaning over colleagues when there was enough space to walk round them. He would also constantly wink at colleagues and at her for no reason. She had asked him to stop winking as it was getting to be irritating, but the Registrant had just laughed at her and continued to wink at her. Colleague 5 said that the Registrant would also constantly say “hello” to colleagues throughout the day. Colleague 5 said that he did this most frequently to Colleague 1, as he knew it annoyed her. Colleague 5 told the Panel that on more than one occasion during the shift she had requested the Registrant to stop saying “hello”. His response had been along the lines of “no, because it annoys [Colleague 1]”.

78. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she was one of two training leads on that shift, the other being Colleague 6. As a training lead, she would expect all employees to follow and respect any instructions given to them by the training leads. Colleague 5 said that the Registrant repeatedly ignored her instructions regarding patient dignity and her requests to stop saying “hello”. She said that he would not follow instructions to complete paperwork required as part of his initial training, telling her that he did not need any training documents.

79. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she had escalated her concerns to NG in a telephone call on 6 July 2020.

Colleague 6

80. Colleague 6 is a Senior CT Radiographer currently employed by AML in the North Mobiles Team. His responsibilities include CT scanning inside mobile units alongside mentoring AML’s newest employees during their probationary period. At the relevant time, Colleague 6 was working in the North Mobiles Team in the car park of the Hospital for the Radiography Department at the Trust. Colleague 6 was a mentor to new employees as well as a training lead for AML.

81. Colleague 6 said that he had completed about four or five shifts with the Registrant after he had taken over as the Registrant’s mentor from Colleague 4, when the Registrant had moved to the mobile unit at the Hospital. Colleague 6 said that he had no concerns about the Registrant’s clinical capabilities as a Radiographer. He was competent at scanning but did require some guidance on operating the scanner platform, which was slightly different to ones he had used in the past. Colleague 6 said that he recalled ensuring during the first shift that the Registrant was familiar with a number of AML policies, including the Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy, the Privacy, Dignity and Respect Policy, and the Social Media Policy. Colleague 6 told the Panel that these policies were available to all staff on the AML online platform SharePoint.

82. Colleague 6 told the Panel that he was concerned the Registrant would often make inappropriate comments to female patients. He recalled one example which had occurred at the end of a shift, when the last patient was in the waiting area and the scanning room was being cleaned. Colleague 6 said that he had asked the Registrant to show the patient in. The Registrant had opened the door to the waiting area and Colleague 6 said he had seen a female patient waiting and had heard the Registrant say something along the lines of “oh wow look at this, my colleague told me there was a patient but never told me it was a beautiful girl”. Colleague 6 said that the patient had laughed and so he did not think that she had found it inappropriate, but he had. Colleague 6 said that he did not raise this with the Registrant at the time. Colleague 6 said that the Registrant took the patient into the scanning room and requested that she change into one of the gowns provided by AML. He said that the Registrant had then entered the scanning room but had not pulled the blind up or left the door open, as he should have done. Colleague 6 said that he had witnessed the Registrant leaving the door closed and the blind down when in the scanning room with a patient before this and had given the Registrant a gentle reminder that he should leave the door open and pull the blind up.

83. Colleague 6 referred to a specific patient who was seen on 6 July 2020. This was a female patient and he had noticed that the metal zip from the patient’s trousers was obstructing the scan images. Colleague 6 said he had asked the Registrant to go into the scanning room to ask the patient to move their trousers down slightly. Colleague 6 said that in this situation you would ask the patient to pull their own trousers down but once again provide the necessary privacy by pulling down the blind and closing the door while they adjusted their clothing.

84. Colleague 6 told the Panel that the Registrant had gone into the scanning room where the patient was alone and said something like “your trousers need to come down”, and then proceeded to pull the trousers down on behalf of the patient. Colleague 6 said he had asked the Registrant why he had done this and said he should not have been touching the patient without permission, and that he should only have assisted the patient if he had been requested to do so. The Registrant’s response was to say words to the effect that “oh no, it’s ok”.

85. Colleague 6 told the Panel that on one of the shifts, the Registrant had been laughing to himself and he had then shown Colleague 6, Colleague 10, and another colleague a picture from his Facebook page and said, “this is why I don’t go to the beach”. The image showed footsteps in the sand with a line going through the middle of the footsteps and was accompanied by an inappropriate caption regarding why someone was not allowed on a nude beach. Colleague 6 said that he did not consider this was appropriate content for the Registrant to be sharing on his social media page or with his colleagues. Colleague 6 said that he had later accessed the Registrant’s Facebook profile, which was public, and had been horrified by other inappropriate content which Colleague 6 described as “pornographic”.

86. Colleague 6 said that he witnessed the Registrant acting inappropriately around female colleagues, including often breaching Covid-19 social distancing rules by invading their personal space. He said that the Registrant said “hello” to female patients and to colleagues multiple times throughout the day and that this was often accompanied by a wink.

Colleague 8

87. Colleague 8 is a Senior Radiographer currently employed by AML in the North Mobiles Team. At the relevant time, Colleague 8 was working in the North Mobiles Team in the car park of the Hospital for the Radiography Department at the Trust. Colleague 8 told the Panel that he only met the Registrant on one day, 6 July 2020, when they worked together on a 12-hour shift in the mobile unit. Colleague 8 said that throughout the shift he thought that the Registrant’s interactions with both patients and colleagues was “generally fine”.

88. Colleague 8 said that he had witnessed Colleague 6 telling the Registrant off for behaving inappropriately with a patient by taking their trousers down without first informing the patient what he was going to do. Colleague 8 told the Panel that Colleague 6 had seen an “artefact” on the screen and had asked the Registrant to ask the patient to move their trousers down. Colleague 8 had not witnessed the incident himself and had only heard part of the conversation between Colleague 6 and the Registrant. Colleague 8 described the Registrant’s reaction to what Colleague 6 was saying as indicating that the Registrant did not think it was a big deal, or that how he had behaved with the patient was wrong.

Colleague 1

89. Colleague 1 is a Senior Radiographer currently employed by AML in the North Mobiles Team. Her responsibilities include MRI and CT scanning in mobile units. At the relevant time, Colleague 1 was working in the North Mobiles Team in the car park of the Hospital for the Radiography Department at the Trust.

90. Colleague 1 told the Panel that she had completed two 12-hour shifts with the Registrant. She thought his interaction with patients had been professional and she had no concerns in that regard. Colleague 1 told the Panel that her concerns with the Registrant related to how he behaved with colleagues. She said she could not remember very much about working with the Registrant, but she had noticed that he had invaded her personal space and that of her colleagues. She referred to occasions when the Registrant would wheel his chair up to her or her colleague, with the result that they were slightly “cornered” in the room which was, in any event, a confined space. Colleague 1 referred to the Registrant being “touchy feely” with colleagues but could not recall a specific incident of this.

91. Colleague 1 told the Panel that the Registrant would say “hello” every time he walked into the scanning room. In her oral evidence, Colleague 1 said the Registrant used a “silly” voice when saying this. This would occur a dozen times a day and she had told him he only needed to say “hello” once. Colleague 1 said that the Registrant’s response to this was words to the effect that “I just like saying this” and he then carried on doing so. In her oral evidence, Colleague 1 said the Registrant had said “I just like annoying you”.

92. Colleague 1 said she had found his behaviour in invading personal space and continually saying “hello” to be annoying. When he had come up close to her, she had found this very uncomfortable.

93. Colleague 1 said she was shown by a colleague some images on the Registrant’s Facebook profile and had thought that they were derogatory towards women. When asked to look at the exhibited screenshots during her evidence, Colleague 1 said that when she had first looked at this in 2020 it had been just a glance, but that what she was being shown now looked very familiar.

Colleague 10

94. Colleague 10 is an Assistant Practitioner currently employed by AML. At the relevant time Colleague 10 was a clinical assistant employed by AML and working in the North Mobiles Team in the car park of the Hospital for the Radiography Department at the Trust. Her responsibilities at that time included dealing with patients on their arrival, conducting safety questionnaires, liaising with radiographers, canulation of patients, and various clinical duties such as cleaning the scanning room. Colleague 10 told the Panel that she had become aware of the Registrant through conversations with other colleagues. She had first met the Registrant when she completed two 12-hour shifts with him in the mobile unit on consecutive dates in July 2020. She said that he was more reserved on the first shift but by the second shift he was, in her view, overfriendly and enthusiastic.

95. Colleague 10 said that she did not witness the Registrant scanning any patients but she had seen him interacting with patients when completing safety questionnaires. She had thought that he was at times overfriendly and enthusiastic with patients, which she put down to his being new to the team and wanting to create a good impression. In answer to a Panel question, Colleague 10 said the Registrant was more friendly with female patients than male patients. Colleague 10 told the Panel that she did not consider the Registrant’s conduct at those times to be inappropriate.

96. Colleague 10 referred to the Registrant’s interaction with colleagues and told the Panel that he repeatedly said “hello” or “good morning” to those colleagues who were working in the scanner. He had often come up behind her and her colleagues when doing so. Colleague 10 said that she had found this “slightly strange”. Colleague 10 also told the Panel that on one occasion she had seen the Registrant “invade” Colleague 1’s personal space when he had in effect cornered her in the room. She said that Colleague 1 had not said anything to the Registrant about this at the time but had talked to Colleague 10 about it afterwards. Colleague 10 referred to the Registrant on one occasion saying “hello” to her when his head was close to her ear. Colleague 10 also told the Panel that she had discussed the Registrant with Colleague 6 and they had both agreed that the Registrant was “a bit odd”.

Colleague 7

97. Colleague 7 is currently studying at university for a Masters degree. Previously she was employed as a Bank Clinical Assistant by AML, a position she had held since September 2019. Her role for AML included dealing with patients, asking safety questions, positioning patients on the scanner, and cleaning the scanner after use. Colleague 7 told the Panel that she had only worked one 12-hour shift with the Registrant and that this would have been in early July 2020. She said that on first meeting the Registrant she thought he had a “slightly strange demeanour, but nothing that concerned me”. Colleague 7 said that the Registrant would constantly turn around and say “hello” to her. She was unsure why he was doing this but said she had found it repetitive. Colleague 7 said she had not witnessed the Registrant saying anything inappropriate to patients or to colleagues, and that he had never acted inappropriately around her. He had been chatty with everyone.

Colleague 13

98. Colleague 13 is currently employed by the Trust as a CT Radiographer in the Radiology Department at the Hospital. Colleague 13 told the Panel that during April 2020, following legislation by the UK Government that any patient testing positive for Covid-19 must undergo a CT scan, the work of the Radiology Department increased and an extra scanner was required to assist with this workload. The Hospital hired a mobile CT scanner from AML to be based in the car park.

99. Colleague 13 told the Panel that she first came across the Registrant when he worked for AML in the mobile unit based in the Hospital car park. Colleague 13 explained that AML staff were expected to work to the Hospital’s Radiology Department protocols. This meant that everyday staff from AML would come to the Radiology Department to collect the names of the patients they were due to scan that day and their relevant forms. Colleague 13 would talk the AML staff through any protocols and answer any questions they had. She said that on average, AML staff would come into the Hospital about 10 times a day to do this.

100. Colleague 13 believed that she saw the Registrant once or twice a week, and this would often be at the weekend when she was conducting lone scanning in the Hospital. She described the Registrant as very confident, extremely chatty, and slightly overfriendly. Colleague 13 said she had not felt uncomfortable around him until events on 5 July 2020.

101. Colleague 13 described how on one occasion the Registrant had followed her to the staff canteen to buy lunch and had then sat with her in the main department staff room to eat lunch. She had found this slightly uncomfortable as at that time she had only met him once; however, the Registrant had been nothing other than friendly.

102. Colleague 13 said that on 5 July 2020, she was lone working in the department when during the morning, the Registrant had come in to collect forms. Nothing untoward had happened. Later in the day, Colleague 13 said she had asked someone from AML to bring her some relevant paperwork so that she could process it. The Registrant had brought the paperwork and he had sat down in the swivel chair next to her, chatting, and he had touched her on the top of her knee. Colleague 13 thought this was overfamiliar but, having got to know the Registrant over previous shifts, put this down to his animated personality.

103. Colleague 13 said that the Registrant had returned to the department later in the day and had touched her shoulders in passing, commenting that her shoulders felt tight. He had offered to massage Colleague 13’s shoulders but she said she had politely declined his offer. Despite this, Colleague 13 said the Registrant had massaged her shoulders for about 30 seconds. This had made her feel very uncomfortable, and she had told him to stop as it was hurting her. Colleague 13 told the Panel that the Registrant had offered to return later and continue with the massage. When he had returned later in the day, Colleague 13 said the Registrant again offered to massage her shoulders, but she politely declined. Colleague 13 said there were times when the Registrant had made her feel uncomfortable and she felt he was being overfamiliar.

Colleague 4

104. Colleague 4 is currently employed by Atkins as an Assistant Radiological Protection Engineer. At the relevant time, Colleague 4 was employed as a Senior CT Radiographer at AML in the North Mobiles Team based in the CT mobile scanner located in the car park of Cumberland Infirmary Hospital. Colleague 4 first met the Registrant on 23 June 2020 when she was allocated as his mentor and his training lead following his induction by NG. Colleague 4 worked with the Registrant on only two shifts, on 23 and 24 June 2020. At that time, Colleague 4 was also the training lead for a number of other new employees. She said that the other new employees all took direction from her but that the Registrant did not.

105. Colleague 4 said that one of the first things the Registrant had said to her was “oh you’re a young female boss, I don’t want you bossing me around. I’m a very experienced radiographer”, or words to that effect. He told her repeatedly that he was very experienced and that he did not need to take instruction from her. Colleague 4 initially laughed off his comments as she thought he might have been nervous on his first day.

106. Colleague 4 said that the Registrant made it clear that he was not happy that he had been provided with a training pack to complete and informed her that he was not going to complete it. She told the Panel that when they had started scanning patients, the Registrant was very insistent that he wanted to use the scanner without any supervision. Colleague 4 told the Panel that she felt the Registrant did not feel comfortable taking instruction from a female.

107. Colleague 4 told the Panel that she had not witnessed the Registrant acting inappropriately with a patient at any point during the two days she worked with him. When asked by the Panel, Colleague 4 said that the Registrant did not appear interested in helping the male patients but would volunteer to escort the female patients.

108. Colleague 4 said that although she had not noticed it initially, once it had been pointed out to her by a colleague (Colleague 3), she had become aware that the Registrant kept touching her. She said she believed that on one occasion he had placed his hands on her shoulders, which was unnecessary. She could not say why he had touched her shoulders.

109. Colleague 4 also told the Panel that the Registrant had made inappropriate comments to her and to Colleague 3. She recalled one such comment when the Registrant had said “If I’m working with you and [Colleague 3] for the next three days, I’ll be on my period”, or words to that effect. Colleague 4 said she had found this to be inappropriate given the Registrant had only known her and Colleague 3 for less than two days. The Registrant’s comment had annoyed and disgusted her, and she said it was unprofessional.

110. Colleague 4 told the Panel that throughout the shift, if a patient was not overfriendly with him the Registrant would mutter some sort of acronym under his breath. She could not say what the letters were or if they were in English. Colleague 4 said that initially she had ignored this and had assumed the Registrant was saying something inappropriate. Then Colleague 3 had asked him what he was saying and the Registrant had responded saying it stood for “she had bad dick”, or words to that effect. The Registrant had asked her and Colleague 3 if they found it funny. Both had ignored him. Colleague 4 thought his remark to be unprofessional and disrespectful to the patients who were being scanned as part of their cancer treatments.

111. Colleague 4 said Colleague 3 had shown her the Registrant’s Facebook profile and that she had been shocked at the inappropriate content she had seen. She told the Panel that what had been most shocking was that the Registrant had a public Facebook profile and it listed his employer as AML for anyone to see.

112. Although Colleague 4 did not raise her concerns about the Registrant on 23 June 2020, midway through the shift on 24 June 2020 she informed her own line manager that she could no longer work with the Registrant because he would not take direction from her. She was very frustrated with the Registrant, who had made the working environment difficult, and she felt tensions were running high. Colleague 4 told the Panel that she believed NG had contacted the Registrant requesting that he finish his paperwork. Colleague 4 said she overheard part of the conversation and heard the Registrant agreeing that he would do as NG suggested and finish his paperwork in the canteen. However, when the call ended, Colleague 4 said she heard the Registrant say that he was not going to do what NG had requested.

The Registrant

113. Although the Registrant was not present, the Panel took note of the answers he gave to NG when questioned by her about his conduct on 7 July 2020. The Registrant appeared to have signed the last of five pages of handwritten notes. The Panel also saw the typed notes of the probation meeting held on 12 August 2020, as well as what the Registrant said in his self-referral form. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s account was not evidence from him which had been tested by cross-examination and that it had not been able to ask him any questions.

114. The Panel noted that in relation to the Facebook account, the Registrant said he set it up some time ago to keep in touch with people in Croatia. He said that his wife had posted the content complained about and that she was using his Facebook account as she could not remember the password to her own account. He said the culture in Croatia was very open. In his self-referral form the Registrant stated that his Facebook account was very old and that it was used by his wife, who communicated with their friends in Croatia and shared adult jokes. He claimed that he had taken the posts down immediately after it had been raised with him. In the notes of the meeting held on 12 August 2020, the Registrant had denied showing colleagues content about social distancing from the Facebook account and claimed it had been from a Twitch account which he held. The Registrant had also claimed that he had the right to freedom of speech.

115. The Registrant said that he disputed not respecting patient dignity and said he offered gowns to patients and always closed the door and the blind when a patient was undressing.

116. The Registrant said that it was his culture to touch people, and that he had been taught that to say “hello” fifty times was better than not saying it at all.

117. The Registrant said that he had not fitted into the team at AML and had felt there was a lot of discrimination towards him.

Particular 1

1. Between 23 June 2020 and 07 July 2020, you did not respect patient dignity in that you:

a. Asked patients to undress without providing a gown,

b. Asked patients to undress without closing the door,

c. Asked patients to undress without closing the blind,

d. Asked female patients if they were wearing a bra before introducing yourself,

e. Called a patient ‘beautiful girl’,

f. On or around 6 July 2020 you pulled a female patient’s trousers down without their consent.

118. The Panel approached Particular 1 by looking first at each of the sub-particulars in turn and deciding if the factual scenario alleged was proved or not proved. Where the factual scenario was proved the Panel then considered the stem of Particular 1 to decide whether the Registrant had not respected patient dignity in that regard.

Particular 1(a) – Proved

119. Particular 1(a) alleged that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity, in that he asked patients to undress without providing a gown. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that on the shift she worked with the Registrant on 1 July 2020, she had seen him on several occasions not providing patients with a gown when they were undressing. The Panel noted that the Radiographers would take it in turns to scan the patients. Colleague 5 said there were between 20 to 25 patients during that shift. This would mean that there would be a number of patients who may not have been offered gowns by the Registrant when they were undressing, although not every patient would have been required to undress for their scan. The Panel also accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that gowns were available on the day in question.

120. The Panel had sight of the AML Privacy, Dignity and Respect Policy and accepted the evidence of NG and Colleagues 4 and 6 that the Registrant had been made aware of this policy. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the need to provide gowns to patients when they undressed and that this was a measure required by AML of its staff in order to respect patient dignity.

121. The Panel was satisfied that in not providing gowns for the patients who had to undress, the Registrant did not respect their dignity by providing a garment which would cover the more intimate parts of their bodies. The Panel noted that the Registrant had said that in his last job he had not had to provide gowns to the patients, but it did not consider this to be any defence to this allegation. The Registrant was aware of the AML policy regarding patient dignity and how he was expected to conduct himself in his new position with the company.

122. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1(a) proved.

Particular 1(b) – Proved

123. Particular 1(b) alleged that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity, in that he asked patients to undress without closing the door. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 and Colleague 6 as to the system adopted within the mobile scanner at the Hospital to ensure patient dignity and privacy was respected when a patient was undressing in the scanning room, namely that the door to the scanning room would be closed.

124. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that during the shift on 1 July 2020, she had seen the Registrant on more than one occasion not close the door when a patient was undressing in the scanning room. The Panel had already noted that the Radiographers would take it in turns to scan the patients. Colleague 5 said there were between 20 to 25 patients during that shift. This would mean that there would be a number of patients who may have undressed without the Registrant closing the door to the scanning room.

125. The Panel had sight of the AML Privacy, Dignity and Respect Policy and accepted the evidence of NG and Colleagues 4 and 6 that the Registrant had been made aware of this policy. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the need to close the door to the scanning room and that this was a measure required by AML of its staff in order to respect patient dignity.

126. The Panel was satisfied that in not closing the door to the scanning room when patients were undressing, the Registrant did not respect their dignity by ensuring that they could not be viewed whilst they undressed.

127. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1(b) proved.

Particular 1(c) – Proved

128. Particular 1(c) alleged that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity, in that he asked patients to undress without closing the blind. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 and Colleague 6 as to the system adopted within the mobile scanner at the Hospital to ensure patient dignity and privacy was respected when a patient was undressing in the scanning room, namely that the blind on the scanning room window would be closed.

129. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that during the shift on 1 July 2020, she had seen the Registrant on more than one occasion not pull the blind on the window down when a patient was undressing in the scanning room. The Panel had already noted that the Radiographers would take it in turns to scan the patients. Colleague 5 said there were between 20 to 25 patients during that shift. This would mean that there would be a number of patients who may have undressed without the Registrant pulling the blind down on the window to the scanning room.

130. The Panel had sight of the AML Privacy, Dignity and Respect Policy and accepted the evidence of NG and Colleagues 4 and 6 that the Registrant had been made aware of this policy. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the need to pull down the blind on the window to the scanning room and that this was a measure required by AML of its staff in order to respect patient dignity.

131. The Panel was satisfied that in not pulling the blind down on the window to the scanning room when patients were undressing, the Registrant did not respect their dignity by ensuring that they could not be viewed whilst they undressed.

132. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1(c) proved.

Particular 1(d) – Proved

133. Particular 1(d) alleged that the Registrant asked female patients if they were wearing a bra before introducing himself. The Panel accepted Colleague 5’s evidence that she witnessed the Registrant doing this to a number of female patients during 1 July 2020 when she worked a shift with the Registrant. The Panel had sight of the AML Privacy, Dignity and Respect Policy and accepted the evidence of NG and Colleagues 4 and 6 that the Registrant had been made aware of this policy and knew that AML employees were required to introduce themselves by name and identify their role to patients. The Panel considered that in behaving in this way, the Registrant was being rude to those female patients in not introducing himself. A bra is an item of underwear designed to cover up a private part of a person’s body. The Panel took the view that in not first introducing himself to those female patients, the Registrant was not treating them as human beings and so was not respecting their dignity.

134. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1(d) proved.

Particular 1(e) – Proved

135. Particular 1(e) alleged that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity when he called a patient “a beautiful girl”. The Panel accepted Colleague 6’s evidence that he heard the Registrant say this to a female patient when collecting them from the waiting area and escorting them to the scanning room. The Panel considered this remark by the Registrant to have been a personal remark which objectified the patient. It was a remark that was not only irrelevant to his role as a Radiographer but also unprofessional. The Panel concluded that in saying this, the Registrant was not respecting the patient’s dignity. The fact that the patient appeared to have laughed at the Registrant’s remark did not alter this fact.

136. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1(e) proved.

Particular 1(f) – Not Proved

137. Particular 1(f) alleged that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity on or around 6 July 2020 when he pulled a patient’s trousers down without their consent. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 6 that he asked the Registrant to enter the scanning room to ask the patient to move their trousers down, as a metal zip was obstructing the scan images. The Panel accepted that the Registrant entered the scanning room and that he did pull the patient’s trousers down.

138. The Panel saw explanations given by the Registrant in the handwritten notes from the interview with NG on 7 July 2020 and the notes of the meeting between NG and the Registrant held on 12 August 2020, when this incident was raised. The Registrant did at one point appear to admit that it had been his mistake to take the patient’s trousers down, and then later said that he had obtained the patient’s consent to pull the trousers down. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s response to Colleague 6 when challenged about this was to say, “oh no, it’s ok”, or words to that effect. In light of this, while the Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did pull the patient’s trousers down, it was not satisfied it was more likely than not that he did so without the patient’s consent. Colleague 6 only viewed what had occurred when the Registrant entered the scanning room and could not recall whether the patient had given consent. The Panel considered that the Registrant would have given some explanation regarding why he was entering the scanning room and about the need for the trousers to be moved down, and so it could not exclude the possibility that the Registrant might have sought and obtained the patient’s consent.

139. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the HCPC had failed to discharge the burden of proving Particular 1(f) and it therefore found it not proved.

Particular 2

2. Between 23 June 2020 and 07 July 2020, you posted content on social media, namely Facebook, that was:

a. Sexually inappropriate,

b. Derogatory towards women.

The stem

140. The Panel first considered whether it was satisfied to the civil standard that it was the Registrant who had posted the content on his Facebook profile which was exhibited in the HCPC’s bundle. The Panel noted that the Registrant claimed the content was posted by his wife. He also claimed that he had the right to freedom of speech, which tends to suggest that he was accepting he had posted the content and that it was his right to do so. There was no direct evidence proving that it was the Registrant who posted the content. The Panel concluded that it was proper to infer that it was more likely than not that it was the Registrant who had posted the content. The Panel rejected the Registrant’s claim that he did not use the Facebook account and that he had showed colleagues a page from a Twitch account. The Panel reached this conclusion because it accepted the evidence of Colleague 6 that he and other colleagues were shown a Facebook profile by the Registrant. In his evidence before the Panel, Colleague 6 identified the post that he had seen from one of the screenshots taken from the Registrant’s Facebook profile. This evidence showed that the Registrant was actively using his Facebook account.

141. The Panel also had the opportunity to view the ten screenshots taken of the Registrant’s Facebook account. The Panel saw that each screenshot was headed with the Registrant’s name and so it was in no doubt that the screenshots came from his Facebook account. The Panel accepted NG’s evidence that the Registrant’s Facebook profile showed that he was employed by AML, and concluded from this that the Registrant had updated his profile following his employment by AML. It therefore rejected the Registrant’s claim that he did not use his Facebook account. The Panel also considered the content of the posts and concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant made these posts and had tried to deflect the blame onto his wife when he realised that they were considered to be inappropriate by his employers.

Particular 2(a) – Proved

142. Particular 2(a) alleged that between 23 June 2020 and 7 July 2020, the Registrant posted content on social media, namely Facebook, that was sexually inappropriate.

143. The Panel viewed the screenshots and was in no doubt that many of images/memes showed content of a sexual nature, either because the image was suggestive of an intimate part of the body such as a penis, together with a caption that was clearly couched in terms that could only be described as “sexual”, or because the content did not involve any image but the words used were clearly couched in terms that could only be described as “sexual”.

144. The Panel had no doubt that the content of these posts was inappropriate in light of the fact that the Facebook account was public. This meant that anyone could access the content and also see that the Registrant was employed by AML, even if his profile did not say that he was employed by them as a Radiographer. It was clear on the part of the profile that the Panel had seen that the Registrant described having studied Radiology in Zagreb.

145. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2(a) proved.

Particular 2(b) – Proved

146. Particular 2(b) alleged that between 23 June 2020 and 7 July 2020, the Registrant posted content on social media, namely Facebook, that was derogatory towards women.

147. The Panel viewed the screenshots and was in no doubt that many of them showed content which was derogatory towards women. The content of some of the screenshots focused on sexual intercourse with women in a way that objectified women and did not treat them as human beings. In that respect, the Panel considered that the content was derogatory, in the sense of being disrespectful towards women.

148. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2(b) proved.

Particular 3

3. Between 23 June 2020 and 07 July 2020, you displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues in that:

a. You breached Covid 19 social distancing policies; in that you unnecessarily invaded the personal space of your female colleagues,

b. You frequently winked at your colleagues,

c. On or around 23 or 24 June 2020 you made a comment which translated to ‘she had bad dick’, or words to that effect,

d. On or around 23 or 24 June 2020 you put your hands on colleague 4’s shoulders,

e. On or around 23 or 24 June 2020 during a conversation with colleague 4, you said “if I am working with you and colleague 3 for the next three days, I’ll be on my period” or words to that effect,

f. On 05 July 2020, you touched the top of colleague 13’s knee,

g. On 05 July 2020, you massaged Colleague 13’s shoulders after they previously declined for you to do so,

h. You repeatedly said “Hello” or words to that effect, to colleagues you were working with and with the intention to annoy colleague 1,

Particular 3(a) – Proved

149. Particular 3(a) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues by breaching Covid-19 social distancing policies in unnecessarily invading the personal space of his female colleagues. The Panel accepted the evidence of NG that AML employees were expected to follow Covid-19 social distancing policies. It acknowledged that this was more difficult in the confined space of a mobile CT scanner unit. The Panel heard evidence from a number of the Registrant’s female colleagues, which it accepted. Colleague 1 said that the Registrant did not need to get as close to her as he did. She described the Registrant as “being in her face”. She also referred to being cornered in the room by the Registrant moving his chair up to hers. Colleague 4 said that it was often difficult to follow Covid-19 social distancing policies and that, after Colleague 3 had pointed it out to her, she had noticed that the Registrant kept touching her. Colleague 10 said that the Registrant had put his head close to her ear when saying “hello” to her. Colleague 6 recalled an occasion when the Registrant had pulled his chair very close to Colleague 10 when there was plenty of space for him to spread out. Colleague 13 said that the Registrant had pulled a swivel chair next to where she was sitting and he had touched the top of her knee.

150. The Panel concluded that it was more likely than not that all of these were examples of the Registrant breaching Covid-19 social distancing policies by unnecessarily invading the personal space of his female colleagues. There was no work-related reason for his closeness to them on these occasions and Covid-19 social distancing policies were to be followed by AML staff where possible, so the Panel was also satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour when he acted in this way towards his colleagues.

151. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(a) proved.

Particular 3(b) – Proved

152. Particular 3(b) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues by frequently winking at his colleagues. The Panel rejected the explanation provided by the Registrant to NG. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that the Registrant would constantly wink at her and her colleagues. Other witnesses also referred to the Registrant winking. The Panel accepted this evidence. Colleague 6 said that when the Registrant was saying “hello” to colleagues, this was often accompanied by a wink. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant frequently winked at his colleagues. The Panel was also satisfied that it was more likely than not that in doing so, the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards his colleagues. It was inappropriate behaviour because there was no medical explanation for winking at colleagues and no professional justification for doing so.

153. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(b) proved.

Particular 3(c) – Proved

154. Particular 3(c) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues on or around 23 or 24 June 2020 by making a comment which translated to “she had bad dick”, or words to that effect. The Panel accepted Colleague 4’s evidence that this comment was made when Colleague 3 asked the Registrant what he was saying under his breath about some of the female patients. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that in making this comment, the Registrant was displaying inappropriate behaviour towards his colleagues. The patients using the scanner at the Hospital were cancer patients who would have been vulnerable and distressed. The acronym may have been in Croatian but this was overheard by the Registrant’s colleagues, who asked for a translation. Colleagues work as a team and it is not appropriate that team members do not understand what is being said or that the translated words, which were disrespectful of patients, have the potential to upset colleagues and undermine their confidence in a fellow colleague.

155. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(c) proved.

Particular 3(d) – Proved

156. Particular 3(d) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues on or around 23 or 24 June 2020 by putting his hand on Colleague 4’s shoulders. The Panel accepted Colleague 4’s evidence that on one occasion the Registrant had put his hands on her shoulders. There had been no work-related reason for doing so and it was not accidental. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that in doing so, the Registrant was displaying inappropriate behaviour towards his colleagues.

157. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(d) proved.

Particular 3(e) – Proved

158. Particular 3(e) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues on or around 23 or 24 June 2020 during a conversation with Colleague 4 by saying “if I am working with you and [Colleague 3] for the next three days, I’ll be on my period”, or words to that effect. The Panel accepted Colleague 4’s evidence that the Registrant said these words or words to that effect to her. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that in saying what he did, the Registrant was displaying inappropriate behaviour towards his colleagues. The comment was made at a time when the Registrant had only just met Colleague 4 and Colleague 3. Colleague 4 was a mentor and training lead at the time. The Registrant’s words were unprofessional and inappropriate.

159. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(e) proved.

Particular 3(f) – Proved

160. Particular 3(f) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues when, on 5 July 2020, he touched the top of Colleague 13’s knee. The Panel accepted Colleague 13’s evidence that the Registrant touched the top of her knee. Colleague 13 described how the Registrant had pulled a swivel chair to sit next to her and the touching had occurred whilst they were talking. There had been no work-related reason for the Registrant to touch Colleague 13 and it was not accidental. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that in touching Colleague 13’s knee, the Registrant was displaying inappropriate behaviour towards his colleagues.

161. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(f) proved.

Particular 3(g) – Proved

162. Particular 3(g) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues when, on 5 July 2020, he massaged Colleague 13’s shoulders after she had previously declined for him to do so. The Panel accepted Colleague 13’s evidence that on 5 July 2020, the Registrant had first touched her shoulders and commented that they felt tight. Colleague 13 said that the Registrant had massaged her shoulders for about 30 seconds even though she had declined his offer to do so. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that, in massaging Colleague 13’s shoulders in effect against her will, the Registrant was displaying inappropriate behaviour towards his colleagues.

163. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(g) proved.

Particular 3(h) – Proved

164. Particular 3(h) alleged that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues when he repeatedly said “hello” or words to that effect to colleagues he was working with, and with the intention to annoy Colleague 1. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleagues 1, 5, 6, 7, and 10 that the Registrant said “hello” or words to that effect to colleagues he was working with. Colleague 5 said that she recalled the Registrant doing this most frequently to Colleague 1, as he knew it annoyed her. Colleague 5 said that she had requested the Registrant on more than one occasion on one shift to stop saying “hello”. She said that his response to her request had been something along the lines of “no, because it annoys [Colleague 1]”. Colleague 1 said that when she had asked the Registrant to stop saying “hello” all the time, he had not stopped and had said that he liked annoying her. The Panel therefore concluded that it was more likely than not that the Registrant had repeatedly said “hello” to colleagues with the intention to annoy Colleague 1.

165. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant displayed inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues in frequently saying “hello” to them and with the intention to annoy Colleague 1. It is never appropriate for one colleague to deliberately set out to annoy another colleague.

166. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 3(h) proved.

Particular 4

4. Between 23 June 2020 and 07 July 2020, you did not accept guidance from training leads, in that:

a. On 23 June 2020 during a conversation with colleague 4, you said “oh you’re a young female boss, I don’t want you bossing me around, I’m a very experienced radiographer” or words to that effect,

b. On 1 July 2020, you repeatedly ignored instructions from Colleague 5 to leave the blind open when alone in the scanning room with a female patient,

c. On 1 July 2020, you repeatedly ignored instructions from Colleague 5 to leave the door open when alone in the scanning room with a female patient,

d. On 1 July 2020, you repeatedly ignored instructions from Colleague 5 to ensure you provided a gown to patients when asking them to undress.

Particular 4(a) – Not Proved

167. Particular 4(a) alleged that the Registrant did not accept guidance from training leads when, on 23 June 2020, during a conversation with Colleague 4, he said “oh you’re a young female boss. I don’t want you bossing me around. I’m a very experienced radiographer”, or words to that effect. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 4 that she was a training lead at that time.

168. The Panel also accepted Colleague 4’s evidence that the Registrant said these words, or words to that effect, to her on 23 June 2020. However, the Panel had seen no evidence that when the Registrant said these words, this was at a time or in response to Colleague 4 providing him with guidance as part of her role as a training lead. The words appeared to have been said almost at the very start of the shift on 23 June 2020, before Colleague 4 had offered any specific guidance to the Registrant. The Panel decided, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no evidence of the stem of Particular 4 in relation to Particular 4(a).

169. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the HCPC had failed to discharge the burden of proving Particular 4(a) and the Panel therefore found it not proved.

Particular 4(b) – Proved

170. Particular 4(b) alleged that the Registrant did not accept guidance from training leads when, on 1 July 2020, he repeatedly ignored instructions from Colleague 5 to leave the blind open when he was alone in the scanning room with a female patient. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that she was a training lead at the relevant time. The Panel also accepted Colleague 5’s evidence that on more than one occasion, the Registrant had kept the blind down whilst in the scanning room with female patients. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she had gone into the scanning room and reminded the Registrant about this requirement. The Panel concluded that as Colleague 5 had to remind the Registrant of this requirement on more than one occasion, this amounted to his repeatedly ignoring her guidance as a training lead. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did not accept guidance from Colleague 5 when he repeatedly ignored her instructions to leave the blind open when in the scanning room with female patients.

171. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 4(b) proved.

Particular 4(c) – Proved

172. Particular 4(c) alleged that the Registrant did not accept guidance from training leads when, on 1 July 2020, he repeatedly ignored instructions from Colleague 5 to leave the door open when he was alone in the scanning room with a female patient. The Panel already accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that she was a training lead at the relevant time. The Panel also accepted Colleague 5’s evidence that on more than one occasion, the Registrant had kept the door closed whilst in the scanning room with female patients. Colleague 5 told the Panel that she had gone into the scanning room and reminded the Registrant about this requirement. The Panel concluded that as Colleague 5 had to remind the Registrant of this requirement on more than one occasion, this amounted to his repeatedly ignoring her guidance as a training lead. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did not accept guidance from Colleague 5 when he repeatedly ignored her instructions to leave the door open when in the scanning room with female patients.

173. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 4(c) proved

Particular 4(d) – Proved

174. Particular 4(d) alleged that the Registrant did not accept guidance from training leads when, on 1 July 2020, he repeatedly ignored instructions from Colleague 5 to ensure that he provided a gown to patients when asking them to undress. The Panel already accepted the evidence of Colleague 5 that she was a training lead at the relevant time. The Panel accepted Colleague 5’s evidence that on a handful of occasions, she had reminded the Registrant that it was unacceptable to request a patient to undress without providing them with a gown to cover them up. Colleague 5 told the Panel that although she had confronted the Registrant every time this happened, the Registrant had not seemed bothered by what she was telling him and, on some occasions, he had laughed at her. The Panel concluded that as Colleague 5 had to remind the Registrant of the need to provide gowns to patients on more than one occasion, this amounted to his repeatedly ignoring her guidance as a training lead. The Panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did not accept guidance from Colleague 5 when he repeatedly ignored her instructions to ensure that he provided a gown to patients when asking them to undress.

175. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 4(d) proved.

Particular 7

7. Your conduct in relation to particulars 1, 3 (d), (f) and/or (g,) and 4 (b), (c), and/or (d), was sexual.

Particular 7 – Not Proved

176. Particular 7 alleged that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 1, 3(d), (f), and/or (g), and 4(b), (c), and/or (d) was sexual.

177. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”. It received and accepted legal advice as to the definition of “sexual”. In particular, the Panel had in mind the following paragraph in the HCPTS Practice Note, which states:

“In some cases, the allegation may have been drafted as the registrant’s conduct being “sexual” rather than sexually motivated. In these cases, Panels need not make a finding on what the registrant’s state of mind was in relation to the conduct, only whether the conduct was, in itself, “sexual”” (Panel’s emphasis)

178. The Panel considered whether the conduct found proved in the various Particulars referred to was, by its nature, “sexual” in itself. If it was not, the Panel then considered whether the conduct found proved was “sexual” because of the circumstances in which it occurred.

179. The Panel concluded that none of the conduct found proved in Particulars 1, 3(d), (f), and/or (g), and 4(b), (c), and/or (d) was, in itself, “sexual”.

180. Particular 1(a) to (e) involved findings that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity in a number of respects. The Panel concluded that none of this conduct was, by its nature, “sexual” in itself. The Panel considered whether the circumstances of the Registrant not respecting patient dignity made his conduct “sexual”. The Panel concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the circumstances did not amount to the Registrant’s conduct being “sexual”. The Panel considered his conduct to have been unprofessional, inappropriate, and disrespectful of the patients. The Panel noted that no patients, male or female, complained about how the Registrant treated them. It also noted that some of the witnesses did not consider that the Registrant behaved inappropriately towards patients. None of the HCPC witnesses said that they considered the Registrant’s interaction with patients to have been sexual.

181. The Panel decided that it could not rule out the possibility that the Registrant’s conduct was limited to his not respecting patient dignity and therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the Panel concluded that the circumstances of the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 1 did not make it “sexual”. The Panel therefore decided that Particular 7 was not proved in relation to Particular 1.

182. Particular 3(d), (f), and/or (g) involved findings that the Registrant behaved inappropriately towards Colleagues 4 (when he touched her shoulders) and Colleague 13 (when he touched the top of her knee and massaged her shoulders). The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour in these instances was not “sexual” in itself. The Registrant did not, for example, touch what may be described as an intimate part of either colleagues’ bodies, nor did he say anything to them at the time from which it might be concluded that his touching was sexual in itself. The Panel considered whether the circumstances of the Registrant’s inappropriate behaviour in touching Colleague 4 and Colleague 13 made his conduct “sexual”. The Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the circumstances did not amount to the Registrant’s conduct being “sexual”. It heard evidence that the Registrant was a “touchy feely” person who was perhaps overfamiliar with some of his female colleagues, invaded their personal space, and was annoying in repeatedly saying “hello” to everyone despite being told not to do so. The Panel decided that it could not rule out the possibility that this was just how the Registrant behaved at that time and that it was not his intention or purpose, in behaving inappropriately as he did, for his conduct to be “sexual”. The Panel therefore decided that Particular 7 was not proved in relation to Particular 3(d), (f), and (g).

183. Particular 4(b), (c), and/or (d) involved findings that the Registrant did not accept guidance from training leads that he should leave the blind and the door open in the scanning room when female patients were undressing, and that he should provide gowns to patients when asking them to undress. The Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s conduct in not accepting guidance from training leads in these regards, by its nature, to be “sexual” in itself. The allegation related to the non-acceptance of guidance. The Panel considered whether the circumstances of the Registrant not accepting guidance in the ways found proved made this “sexual”. The Panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the circumstances did not amount to the Registrant’s conduct being “sexual”. The Panel therefore decided that Particular 7 was not proved in relation to Particular 4(b), (c), and (d).

184. The Panel concluded that the HCPC failed to discharge the burden of proving Particular 7 in its entirety. It therefore found Particular 7 not proved.

Decision on Grounds

185. In reaching its decision on the statutory ground of misconduct, the Panel took account of the submissions from Mr Jotangia. The Panel received and accepted legal advice.

Submissions

186. Mr Jotangia submitted that the Panel’s findings of fact indicated that the Registrant’s conduct had fallen far below the standards required of a Radiographer. He submitted that the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession by not respecting patient dignity. Mr Jotangia referred to the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics and submitted that Standard 1 and Standard 2 were engaged and had been breached by the Registrant.

Decision

187. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to each of the matters found proved in Particulars 1 to 4 fell far below the standards to be expected of a Radiographer and amounted to misconduct.

188. In relation to Particular 1, the Panel found that the Registrant did not respect patient dignity in a number of respects. The Panel considered that patients are vulnerable when they come to be treated by health care professionals and although there is no evidence of harm being caused to any of the patients involved, who have not been identified, there was a clear potential for harm to have been caused which may have resulted in patients losing trust in the Radiography profession.

189. In relation to Particular 2, the Panel concluded that this misconduct was a serious departure from the standards expected of a Radiographer. To post sexually inappropriate content which was derogatory towards women on a public social media account such as Facebook, which anyone could access and which named a healthcare provider as the employer of the holder of the account, could clearly cause potential patients to lose trust in the Radiography profession and even decline to be treated by anyone at AML. Further, colleagues who saw the posts used strong language to describe their reaction and did not wish to continue working with the Registrant.

190. In relation to Particular 3, the Panel took the view that this misconduct was a serious departure from the standards expected of a Radiographer. Radiographers are meant to work in partnership with colleagues and not to touch them unnecessarily or invade their personal space. This was particularly so during the Covid-19 pandemic when social distancing rules were in place.

191. In relation to Particular 4, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was a serious departure from the standards expected of a Radiographer. AML had put in place training leads to assist new employees, even ones with previous experience, to work to its policies and understand the scanners used within the mobile units, which may be different to those which new employees had used before. A failure to follow the guidance of training leads was disrespectful of those colleagues and it had the potential to harm patients when the guidance ignored related to respecting patient dignity.

192. In reaching its decision on misconduct, the Panel also had in mind the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics (2016) and concluded that the following standards were engaged and had been breached, namely Standards 1, 2, and 9.

Standard 1: Promote and protect the interests of service users and carers

Treat service users and carers with respect

1.1 You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity

193. The Panel took the view that the Registrant breached this standard when he did not respect patient dignity in the ways set out in Particular 1(a) to (e).

Standard 2: Communicate appropriately and effectively

Work with colleagues

2.5 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.

Social media and networking websites

2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.

194. The Panel considered that these standards had been breached when the Registrant did not work in partnership with his colleagues and instead chose to ignore guidance given by training leads which was intended to benefit the patients. The Registrant did not use Facebook appropriately or responsibly when he posted sexually inappropriate content, some of which was derogatory towards women.

Standard 9: Be honest and trustworthy

Personal and professional behaviour

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

195. The Panel considered that the public expects Radiographers and other health professionals to conduct themselves with propriety in all aspects of their personal and professional lives. The Registrant did not make sure that his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him or in his profession when he did not respect patient dignity, behaved inappropriately towards colleagues, did not follow guidance given to him by training leads, and when he posted, on a public profile on his Facebook account, content that was sexually inappropriate and derogatory towards women.

196. Accordingly, the Panel found misconduct in this case.

Decision on Impairment

197. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel took account of the submissions of Mr Jotangia. It received and accepted legal advice. The Panel bore in mind that the purpose of this hearing was not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise.

Submissions

198. Mr Jotangia submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public components. With regard to the personal component, Mr Jotangia submitted that although the misconduct was remediable, there was no evidence that the Registrant had taken any steps to remedy it. The Registrant had not reflected on his misconduct, nor had he apologised for it, shown proper remorse, or developed any insight into it. In these circumstances, there was a real risk that the Registrant would repeat the misconduct.

199. On the public component, Mr Jotangia submitted that public confidence in the Radiography profession would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. Mr Jotangia submitted that the most serious aspect of the misconduct was in not following guidance from training leads.

Decision

200. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered the misconduct found in this case. It noted that this is not a case where there are any concerns as to the Registrant’s clinical competence.

Personal component

201. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct in respect of the Registrant’s interactions with service users and with colleagues was capable of being remedied.

202. The Panel noted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had developed any insight or that he had properly reflected on his conduct, which had occurred during the very short period of time in 2020 when he worked as a probationary Radiographer for AML. The Registrant had expressed no remorse for his conduct at that time and had sought to blame others.

203. The Panel had seen no evidence that the Registrant had taken any steps to remedy his misconduct. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant may have deep-seated attitudinal issues which might make it more difficult for him to remedy his misconduct.

204. The Panel had seen no evidence that the Registrant had insight into the impact of his misconduct on either service users, colleagues, or on his profession.

205. The Panel considered the extent to which the Registrant’s misconduct had caused harm. There was no evidence that any service user was harmed by the Registrant’s conduct. The Registrant’s colleagues found him to be annoying and odd, and some said that they were uncomfortable in his presence. The Panel already referred to the potential for the Registrant’s misconduct to undermine patient’s trust in healthcare professionals such as Radiographers. The Panel concluded that as the Registrant’s misconduct had not been remedied, there remained a real risk that he may, in the future, cause harm to either service users and/or colleagues.

206. The Panel considered the likelihood that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct. It was satisfied that, because of the Registrant’s lack of insight and because there was no evidence that he had taken any steps to remedy his misconduct, it could not rule out that he may repeat his misconduct in the future.

207. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

Public component

208. In relation to the public component, the Panel considered carefully whether, given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the misconduct, public confidence in the profession and in its regulatory body would be significantly undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel also considered whether it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in that profession if it did not find impairment in this case.

209. The Panel concluded that a reasonable and well-informed member of the public would be shocked if there was no finding of impairment where those facts showed that a registrant: (i) had not respected patient dignity; (ii) had behaved inappropriately towards colleagues; (iii) had posted sexually inappropriate content which was also derogatory towards women on a public Facebook profile; and (iv) had not taken guidance from training leads which was designed to assist in the effective carrying out of the role of a radiographer. The Panel was satisfied that public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be significantly undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel was also satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Radiography profession if it did not find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired. It considered that if there was no finding of impairment it would send out the wrong message, namely that misconduct of this nature does not have any regulatory consequences.

210. The Panel had no doubt that the Registrant’s misconduct brought the Radiography profession into disrepute. The public is entitled to rely on registered professionals to conduct themselves appropriately when acting in the course of their profession. When they do not, this inevitably brings the profession into disrepute.

211. The Panel was also satisfied that in acting as he did, the Registrant breached a fundamental tenet of his profession, namely that a registered professional must make sure that their professional behaviour justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession.

212. The Panel took the view that unless and until the Registrant demonstrates that he has remedied his misconduct, there was a risk that he will in the future bring his profession into disrepute and breach a fundamental tenet of that profession.

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

214. Accordingly, the Panel therefore found, on both the personal and public component, that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired and that the Allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

215. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the Panel was referred to, and took account of, the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Panel was aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have that effect, but it is to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Radiography profession, and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel also had in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate, bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the misconduct involved.

Submissions

216. As is the HCPC’s usual approach at the sanction stage, Mr Jotangia did not advance any particular sanction. Mr Jotangia submitted that the Panel’s findings regarding not respecting patient dignity involved basic and fundamental aspects of the role of a radiographer. Mr Jotangia submitted that the aggravating features of the case were that the Registrant had shown no insight or remorse, he had not apologised for his misconduct, and he had taken no steps to remedy it. The Registrant had sought to blame others. Mr Jotangia submitted that there was a real risk of repetition in this case.

Decision

217. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel first looked at the mitigating factors and concluded that there were no mitigating factors.

218. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors:

- the Registrant had no insight into his misconduct and its impact on service users, his colleagues, his profession, and the wider public interest, and he failed to express any remorse or to apologise;
- the Registrant had not taken any steps towards remedying his misconduct;
- the breach of trust between a registrant and a patient involved in not respecting patient dignity;
- the potential service user harm if a patient decided not to be treated for fear their dignity would not be respected;
- the pattern of unacceptable behaviour over a relatively short period of time.

219. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It decided that mediation or taking no action was inappropriate in this case given the serious nature of the concerns and the risk of repetition.

220. The Panel also decided that imposing a Caution Order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The Panel had in mind the HCPC Sanctions Policy paragraph 101, which states:

“101. A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.”

221. The Panel considered that whilst the misconduct in this case was “limited” in the sense that it took place over a short period of time, it could not be described as “isolated” or “relatively minor in nature”. The Panel was not able to conclude that there was a low risk of repetition, because the Registrant had not engaged with these proceedings and had shown no insight into the causes of his misconduct or its impact on service users, his colleagues, his profession, and the wider public. The Panel was satisfied that to ensure public confidence in the profession is not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

222. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order and, in particular, the matters set out in paragraphs 106 and 107 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which state:

“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
• the registrant has insight;
• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;
• there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;
• the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice.”

“Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident, they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious and persistent failings.”

223. The Panel already stated that it considered the misconduct in this case was capable of being remedied. It also referred to the Registrant’s lack of insight. While this may point to there being attitudinal problems which may make it more difficult for this Registrant to remedy his misconduct, it should not make it impossible for him to do so if he chooses to. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not engaged with this process and so it could not be completely confident that the Registrant would comply with conditions, particularly as one aspect of his misconduct was not to take instruction from training leads. However, the Panel noted that not all those who worked with the Registrant noticed inappropriate behaviour towards patients, some described him as friendly and chatty, his clinical competence was not in issue, and the period over which his misconduct occurred was limited to a small number of shifts over a period of about 14 days. The Panel considered that there should be no reason why the Registrant could not comply with conditions of practice should he return to employment as a Radiographer.

224. The Panel concluded that it was possible to devise appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions which would address the concerns regarding the Registrant’s behaviour in this case. Although the Registrant had not engaged with these proceedings there was some information which suggested that this may be because he is unwell at the current time.

225. The Panel was satisfied that a reviewing panel would be able to determine if the conditions had been met. The Panel also considered that the Registrant would not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice.

226. The Panel proposed that conditions are imposed which will involve a period of direct supervision by a workplace supervisor in order to ensure that the Registrant is conducting himself appropriately with regard to respecting patient dignity and in his interactions with colleagues, including taking guidance and instruction from them where this is required. This will be subject to a minimum period and will only end when the workplace supervisor is satisfied that the Registrant can be signed off as compliant with the requirements of respecting patient dignity, behaving appropriately with colleagues, and taking guidance and instruction from senior colleagues. There will then be a period of indirect supervision for the remainder of the Order. The Panel considered that the appropriate and proportionate period of time for the Conditions of Practice Order to be in place was a period of two years. This will give the Registrant sufficient time to find employment as a Radiographer and for him to show that he can now conduct himself appropriately with both patients and his work colleagues.

227. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC Sanctions Policy:

“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;
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

228. The Panel decided that the concerns in this case can properly be addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order. In these circumstances, it concluded that it would be disproportionate to impose a Suspension Order.

229. Although the Panel cannot bind any future reviewing panel, it may be of assistance to that panel if the Registrant were to:

• Attend in person or remotely at the review hearing;
• Produce a reflective piece on all aspects of his misconduct;
• Obtain and provide a report from his workplace supervisor or employer confirming that he has complied with the terms of the Order.

That the Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register to show that, for a period of two years from the date when this Order takes effect (“the Operative Date”), you, Spomenko Loncar, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must promptly inform the HCPC if you take up employment as a Radiographer.

2. You must place yourself under the supervision of a workplace supervisor who is registered by the HCPC or other appropriate statutory regulator, of Band 7 (or equivalent) or above, and supply details of your workplace supervisor to the HCPC within 14 days of taking up employment as a Radiographer. You must attend upon that workplace supervisor no less than once a month and follow their advice and recommendations.

3. You must work under the direct supervision of your workplace supervisor and/or a senior radiographer for a minimum period of 50 hours and until such time as your workplace supervisor is satisfied that you are compliant with the requirement:

(i) to respect patient dignity;

(ii) to behave appropriately with colleagues; and

(iii) to take guidance and instruction from colleagues as required.

You must inform the HCPC within 14 days of your workplace supervisor signing you off as being compliant in those aspects of your practice.

4. When you have been signed off as compliant by your workplace supervisor, you will remain under the indirect supervision of your workplace supervisor for the duration of this Order.

5. You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer.

6. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with (at the time of application); and

C. any prospective employer (at the time of your application).

 

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry.

Interim Order

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

1. Mr Jotangia applied for an Interim Conditions of Practice Order to cover the appeal period. Mr Jotangia submitted that given the Panel’s findings in relation to impairment, an Interim Conditions of Practice Order was necessary to protect the public and it was otherwise in the public interest.

2. The Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the same reasons as set out in its determination above. The Registrant received proper notice of the application in the email sent to him by the HCPC on 21 July 2023. The Panel considered that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend and that it was in the public interest that such an application was considered.

Decision

3. The Panel decided to make an Interim Conditions of Practice Order in the same terms as the Order above 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 for the reasons set out in the determination above.

4. 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 Spomenko Loncar

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
18/09/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Conditions of Practice