Francois Marion Jurado

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel convened to consider an Allegation against Mr Francois Marion Jurado. Mr Kerruish-Jones appeared on behalf of the HCPC. Mr Jurado did not attend and was not represented.

Service

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had sight of an email dated 17 October 2024, sent to the Registrant at his registered email address, giving notice of today’s hearing. The email was also sent on the same date to an alternative email address, namely the one used by the Registrant when making his self-referral to the HCPC. There was notification that the emails had been delivered. The emails notified the Registrant of the hearing time, the date, and that it would be conducted by video conference. Information was included about how the Registrant could join the video conference if he wished to do so, and the Panel’s power to proceed in his absence in the event that he did not attend.

3. The Panel was thus satisfied that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003.

Proceeding in absence

4. As the Registrant did not attend the hearing, Mr Kerruish-Jones made an application to proceed in his absence.

5. The Panel heard and accepted the legal advice from the Legal Assessor, who referred it to the case of the GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, and the principles to be considered when deciding whether or not to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had in mind the need to exercise its discretion to proceed with the utmost care and caution, particularly because the Registrant was not represented.

6. The Panel took into account the content of the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant, which included information about how he could apply for an adjournment should he wish to do so, and the Panel’s power to proceed in his absence in the event that he did not attend. The Registrant had not responded to that notice, nor had he requested an adjournment.

7. The Panel was also provided with a number of emails sent to the Registrant by the Hearings Officer in November and December 2024, reminding him of his pending hearing and asking him to confirm if he would be attending. These were sent to both his registered email address and the alternative email address referred to above. He had not responded to any of these emails sent to him.

8. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly notified of this hearing and that he should be aware of the date it was due to take place. From the Crown Court transcript contained within the papers, the Panel noted that the Registrant was aware that the HCPC was taking action against him and so could have anticipated that there would be a hearing in due course. By not responding to the notice of the hearing, or any of the correspondence sent to him by the HCPC, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had deliberately and voluntarily waived his right to be present and his right to be represented at this hearing. The Panel noted that the Registrant faced serious allegations and there was a clear public interest in the matter being dealt with expeditiously. The Panel considered an adjournment would serve no useful purpose and the Registrant had not requested one.

9. The Panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the matter should proceed notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant. The Panel would draw no adverse inference from the Registrant’s non-attendance.

Background

10. The Registrant was on a two-year work visa in the UK and had been employed at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester as a Radiographer.

11. Between 11 October 2022 and 20 December 2022, the Registrant attempted to contact a prospective sexual partner on a website. He ended up in contact with a 14-year-old boy who, in fact, did not exist. This was a decoy set up by a group called ‘London Overwatch and Innocent Voices’. The decoy was clear of their age from the outset. The Registrant’s communication was initially via an app and then via WhatsApp. The Registrant wanted to meet with the 14-year-old boy and it was clear that his goal was for sex. He was then subject to a sting which was broadcast live on Facebook.

12. On 5 January 2023, police notified the HCPC of the Registrant’s arrest. The covering letter stated:

“On the 2nd January 2023, Mr Jurado was arrested for the following offences;

Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child

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

This arrest was following a report that Mr Jurado had been communicating with a decoy profile of a 14-year-old boy.

The conversations began on the 11th October 2022. During these conversations, it is alleged that Mr Jurado attempts on multiple occasions to arrange to meet the 14-year-old for sex.

Mr Jurado was subsequently bailed to return to the Northern Police Investigation Centre on the 2nd April 2023.

As part of his bail conditions, he is not to have unsupervised contact with persons under 18 years old.”

13. The Registrant self-referred the matter to the HCPC on 1 February 2023.

14. The Registrant was subsequently charged as follows:

“Between 11/10/2022 - 20/12/2022 at Winchester you, being a person aged 18 or over, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally communicated with “Josh Jackson”, a person under 16 who you did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual, namely sending a topless photograph, asking whether he wants to try kissing a man and repeatedly inviting him to attend your home address for sex.”

15. For the avoidance of doubt, “Josh Jackson” is a fictitious character.

16. The Registrant entered a ‘not guilty’ plea at Court and was due to stand trial on 10 January 2024 in respect of the offence above. However, on the morning of the trial, those representing him sought an indication as to sentence from the Judge, following which the Registrant changed his plea to one of guilty. The matter was then adjourned for sentence.

17. On 23 February 2024, the Registrant appeared before Mr Recorder Crook-North at Winchester Crown Court for sentence.

18. During mitigation, the Registrant’s Barrister noted:

“…as a radiologist, he may not be able to practise again because he sees all types of patients, from children to geriatric, there’s no distinction made in the hospital and there doesn’t appear to be a practical possibility of having him work only with adults rather than children, it just may not be achievable, so it may be he will never work in his specialism again.” (sic)

19. The sentencing Judge observed the following:

“I accept entirely what the Prosecution say about the fact that you were attempting to lure a boy to your address. I would say that you made it absolutely clear this was not a case of you luring somebody with an ulterior motive, your motive was clear in the messages that I saw.”

20. The sentencing Judge went on to say:

“You have lost your employment, you have had to move away from the area. You are now suspended until at least November and your visa lasts until December, as I understand it, but you are assessed as suitable for a sex offender programme by the Probation Service, and given your discussions with the probation officer, you are assessed at medium risk of re- conviction and medium risk of sexual re-offending. Given that I find this in the lower level of 1B and given the mitigating features that I have accepted on your behalf, your offence is serious enough for a Community Order.”

21. The sentence imposed in respect of the offence was:

• A Community Order lasting for 24 months, comprising:

• 150 hours’ unpaid work;

• 60 days’ Rehabilitation Activity Requirement;

• Attend a sex offender programme.

• The imposition of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) for a period of five years (any breach of the SHPO being punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment). The terms of the SHPO included notification requirements to the police.

22. The sentencing Judge also commented:

“Mr Jurado, if you are to go back to your work, then I am afraid that arrangements must be in place that you are supervised if ever there is a child there when you are working. I have informed you about notification previously. I will do it now.

…

Five years from the date of your conviction, you will keep the police informed at all times of your personal particulars, the address at which you are living and any alteration in the name you are using.”

Decision on Facts

23. In reaching its decisions on the facts the Panel took into account the Memorandum of Conviction which, the Legal Assessor advised, is conclusive proof of the Conviction. Accordingly, the Panel found the facts as set out in Particular 1 proved.

Decision on Grounds

24. The Panel next considered the statutory ground. Because this is a conviction case and the Panel had been provided with the Memorandum of Conviction, the Panel found the statutory ground to be made out.

Decision on Impairment

25. Having found the statutory ground of conviction to be well founded, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired as a result of that conviction. In doing so, it took into account the submissions made by Mr Kerruish-Jones and all of the documents provided. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

26. The Panel noted that in the Crown Court the Registrant had been wrongly referred to by his Barrister as a Radiologist rather than a Radiographer, although the sentiments expressed applied to a Radiographer nonetheless.

27. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant had breached the following standard of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):

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

28. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant’s behaviour had damaged public confidence in both him and the profession. The public need to have confidence in the registrants who treat them. The public is entitled to expect registrants to be professionally competent and to act with decency, honesty, and integrity. Arranging to meet a 14-year-old child with the intention of having a sexual interaction with them cannot be said to be acting with decency or integrity.

29. The Panel had been advised by the Legal Assessor that an important factor when considering current impairment is whether the conduct which led to the allegation is remediable, that it has been remedied, and that it is highly unlikely to be repeated. Central to the issue of remediation is the Registrant’s insight. At the Crown Court the Registrant showed some insight by his, albeit last-minute, guilty plea, yet maintained he had not sought out an underage boy but rather was seeking to meet people for company and sex. His Barrister at Court sought to portray the Registrant’s behaviour as a “bad decision” rather than anything more deep-seated.

30. As part of his sentence in the Crown Court, the Registrant was to complete 60 days’ Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and attend a sex offender programme. It was not known if he had completed these requirements and, if so, whether they had been effective in their purpose. There was, therefore, nothing before this Panel to indicate any effective remediation.

31. In reaching its decision on current impairment, the Panel took into account the fact that the Registrant was messaging what he believed to be a 14-year-old boy, repeatedly requesting that they meet up to have sex. It was not simply on one occasion but repeated requests over a period of time. It was not one of those cases where there was a sexual fantasy going on but never with any intent to meet. The Registrant actually gave his home address to a person he believed to be a 14-year-old boy and invited him over for sex. Accordingly, this was a serious attempt by the Registrant to lure a 14-year-old boy over to his house for the purpose of sex and, it was said at Court, the messages went into detail about what they would do. The Panel did not accept what the Registrant’s Barrister had said at Court because clearly this type of predatory behaviour is indicative of a deep-seated attitudinal issue and indicates that the Registrant represents a significant, ongoing risk to children.

32. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had demonstrated virtually no insight and little understanding of the seriousness and consequences of his conviction. Furthermore, he had shown no understanding of what motivated him to attempt to groom, and then try to meet, what he clearly thought was a 14-year-old boy with a view to committing serious sexual offences. Nor had he provided the Panel with any reassurance about how he might prevent such behaviour being repeated and the Panel noted the Probation Service assessment that he represented a medium risk of re-conviction and medium risk of sexual re-offending. This was not a case, therefore, where the Panel could be satisfied that it was highly unlikely that the behaviour would be repeated.

33. The Panel thus concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Radiographer was at the time, and remains, impaired on public protection grounds, not least because in his work he would be expected to interact with the public, which could include children, but also because of the impact on patients of learning that a Radiographer had behaved in this way.

34. The Panel went on to consider whether this was the type of case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator and to uphold professional standards.

35. The Panel was satisfied that such behaviour brings the profession into disrepute. It was equally satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator significantly undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. The Panel considered that a member of the public would be shocked if the Regulator took no action in a case where a Radiographer had been convicted of a serious offence relating to grooming and attempting to meet up with a 14-year-old boy to commit serious sexual offences. There was clearly a need to send out the message to the profession that this sort of behaviour—that is to say the sexual exploitation of children—is wholly unacceptable and not to be tolerated.

36. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had yet to complete his sentence from the Crown Court and that, in accordance with the general principle enunciated in the case of The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v GDC and Alexander Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin), he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence in February 2026.

37. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on public protection and public interest grounds and that the allegation of impairment is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

38. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Kerruish-Jones, together with all the written evidence and any identified matters of personal mitigation. The Panel also referred to the guidance issued by the HCPC in its Sanctions Policy. The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession, and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

39. The Registrant had provided nothing by way of mitigation to this Panel and had demonstrated minimal insight by his late guilty plea at Court. As stated above, it was not known whether he had completed his 60 days’ Rehabilitation Activity Requirement or attended the sex offender programme and, if he had, whether they had been effective in their purpose. The Panel was thus unable to identify any mitigating factors beyond his guilty plea at Court and the fact that the Judge accepted the assertion that the Registrant was remorseful.

40. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:

• predatory behaviour targeting a 14-year-old child;

• the Registrant being subject to a live sentence;

• the Registrant being on the Sex Offenders Register for many years;

• a complete lack of any meaningful insight or remediation;

• behaviour that actively undermined the profession.

41. In light of the serious nature of the conviction, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case in which to take no further action.

42. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would adequately reflect the seriousness of the conviction. The Panel’s role, as indicated by the Sanctions Policy, was not to punish the Registrant twice for the same offence but to protect the public, maintain high standards among registrants, and maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel did not consider that such an Order would adequately mark the seriousness of the behaviour or protect the public.

43. This was not a case where conditions of practice would be appropriate because of the serious nature of the Registrant’s conduct and his lack of insight. Conditions are essentially aimed at clinical concerns and there are none of those in this case; the concerns are not clinical but attitudinal, and the Panel is not confident that the Registrant is addressing those concerns at this time. The Panel considered that conditions would not protect the public or the public interest, and in any event the Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending behaviour. Furthermore, without the Registrant present it could not be known if the Registrant would comply with conditions, even if the Panel did consider them a possibility, which it did not.

44. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The Sanctions Policy states that, “A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register”. The Sanctions Policy further states that these types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

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

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

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

45. The Panel had already concluded that the Registrant has virtually no insight and thus the issues are likely to be repeated. Until he develops his insight he is unlikely to be able to remedy his failings. The Panel reminded itself of the nature of the conviction, namely engaging in sexual communication with a child with a view to meeting up with them for sex. The Panel considered it appalling for anyone, let alone a registered health care professional, to behave in this harmful way and the Panel was concerned about the real risk of repetition given the minimal insight and remediation.

46. Although a Suspension Order would provide protection to the public for its duration, the Panel decided that, having identified a risk of repetition of this behaviour and in the absence of any meaningful evidence from the Registrant about remediation, a suspension was not appropriate. In addition, the Panel was not satisfied that it would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process or to send a clear message to the profession at large that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The Panel thus determined that a Suspension Order would not be a sufficient sanction in the circumstances of this case.

47. In reaching this decision, the Panel took into account the case of Fleischmann referred to above, where the High Court stated that as a matter of general principle, where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence. This had direct relevance to this case because the Registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and his sentence would not be completed until February 2026.

48. The Panel also took into account paragraph 91 of the Sanctions Policy, which states, “Panels need to give careful consideration to the specific terms of any community sentence but, generally, it will be inappropriate to allow a registrant to remain in, or return to, unrestricted practice whilst they are subject to such a sentence”.

49. The Panel therefore looked at the guidance in the Sanctions Policy on making a Striking Off Order, so as to be able to decide whether such an Order would be appropriate. The guidance states that, “Striking off is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving: sexual abuse of children”.

50. The guidance also states that:

“Sexual abuse of children involves forcing or persuading them to take part in sexual activities and includes both physical contact and online activity …

Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.”

51. Paragraph 85 of the Sanctions Policy refers to registrants on the Sex Offenders Register, stating “a panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders’ database”.

52. The Panel found that this case was characterised by seriously deviant behaviour, involving an attempt at grooming someone whom the Registrant believed was a 14-year-old boy. The Registrant went further than just communicating with what he believed to be a child and was trying to arrange to meet the boy for sex, having provided his home address.

53. The Sanctions Policy goes on to observe that, “A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process”. The Panel’s earlier finding in relation to the consideration of a Suspension Order identified that a lesser sanction would indeed be insufficient to represent these wider public interest issues in the specific circumstances of this case.

54. The Panel concluded that, in light of the seriousness of the behaviour and the limited insight and remediation, there is a real risk that the behaviour would be repeated. There was no evidence before the Panel to demonstrate that the Registrant had begun to address the underlying causes of his offending behaviour. He is also subject to a live Crown Court sentence until February 2026.

55. In all the circumstances, the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking Off Order. The Panel considered that engaging in sexual communication with a believed-to-be child and an attempt to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex following acts of grooming represented behaviour fundamentally incompatible with being a registered healthcare practitioner. The same was true of someone on the Sex Offenders Register and also subject to a live sentence. The Panel took into account the impact this was likely to have upon the Registrant, but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public and the public interest.

56. Accordingly, the Panel made a Striking Off Order and directed the Registrar to erase Francois Marion Jurado’s name from the Register.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Francois Marion Jurado from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Following its decision on sanction, Mr Kerruish-Jones made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period for 18 months to cover the appeal period and any appeal, in the event that one were to be made. The application was made on both public protection and public interest grounds.

2. The Registrant had been warned in the Notice of Hearing that such an application might be made and had not made any representations.

3. The Panel had found that the Registrant engaged in sexual communication with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old boy. The Panel had already concluded that the Registrant represents a continuing risk to the public because there remains, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, a concern that he would repeat the behaviour, particularly given his limited insight and lack of any meaningful remediation. The Panel therefore concluded that during the 28-day appeal period or in the time taken to conduct any appeal, in the event that one is made, an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public from the risks it had identified.

4. The Panel was also of the view that, given the nature and seriousness of the conduct in this case, public confidence in the regulatory process would be undermined if the Registrant were allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis during any appeal period. The Panel therefore determined that an Interim Order is otherwise in the public interest.

5. The Panel first considered whether an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient. However, for the same reasons as dealt with at the sanction stage, the Panel concluded that conditions would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case.

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

7. 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) upon the final determination of any appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Francois Marion Jurado