Oliver Hough

Profession: Radiographer

Registration Number: RA76709

Interim Order: Imposed on 11 May 2023

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 16/12/2024 End: 17:00 17/12/2024

Location: Virtual via video conference.

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

 

Allegation

As a registered Radiographer (RA76709):

1. On 4 September 2023 at Leeds Crown Court, you were convicted of:
a. Assault a male 13 or over by penetration with part of body / a thing contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003
b. Sexual assault on a male
c. Sexual assault on a male
d. Sexual assault on a male.

2. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction.

Finding

The Panel at the Substantive Hearing found the following:

Facts proved: 1 and 2
Facts not proved: N/A
Grounds: Conviction
Fitness to Practise Impaired: Yes
Sanction: Striking Off Order

 

Background

1. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer with the HCPC.

2. The Registrant sent a self-referral to the HCPC dated 10 February 2023 advising that he had been arrested on 15 January 2023 in relation to an allegation of sexual assault and had been released on bail.

3. A certified certificate of conviction dated 23 November 2023 confirms that the Registrant was convicted on four counts of sexual assault at Leeds Crown Court, as set out in the regulatory allegation.


4. It is recorded on the certificate of conviction that the Registrant entered a guilty plea in the criminal trial. The sentencing remarks clarify that the Registrant initially entered not guilty pleas in March 2023 and the trial was listed for 8 July 2024, however the Registrant subsequently entered guilty pleas on 4 September 2023. The sentencing remarks explain that there were two victims in relation to the four counts on the indictment.


5. The Registrant was sentenced on 29 September 2023 to a term of imprisonment totalling 43 months and is required to sign the sex offender’s register indefinitely.


6. The Registrant engaged with the Regulatory investigation at the early stages, however he has not recently been able to engage with the process because of his imprisonment. The HCPC acknowledge that the Registrant has positively engaged in the final hearing by engaging his representative.

Decision on Facts


7. The Panel was provided with the following documents:

• The HCPC’s self-referral form dated 10 February 2023
• Transcript of Judge’s Sentencing remarks, dated 29 September 2023
• Certified Certificate of Conviction dated 23 November 2023

8. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and
that the civil standard of proof applied, so the particulars of the allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

9. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC and the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

10. The Panel made the following findings of fact:

On 4 September 2023 at Leeds Crown Court you were convicted of:

a. Assault a male 13 or over by penetration with part of body / a thing contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003
b. Sexual assault on a male
c. Sexual assault on a male
d. Sexual assault on a male.

11. With regard to particular 1 the Panel was provided by the HCPC with evidence of the Certificate of Conviction dated 23 November 2023 and a copy of the Judge’s sentencing remarks dated 29 September 2023.


12. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that where the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based, pursuant to Rule 10 (1)(d) of the (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003.


13. The panel noted that a conviction allegation can be proved by the production of the certified copy of the Memorandum of Conviction. The panel was satisfied from the evidence produced that Particular 1 is found proved.

Decision on Grounds

14. The HCPC rely on the statutory ground of conviction pursuant to Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001, which provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of:

‘a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence,’  

15. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

16. The panel found allegation 1 proved and the panel was satisfied from the evidence produced that the ground for conviction was established.

Decision on Impairment

17. The Panel took into account the submissions by Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC and by Mr Nettleton on behalf of the Registrant, who referred the Panel to the numerous character references which had been provided.

18. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and the Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations”

19. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised the Panel to consider the criteria set out in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927, namely whether the Registrant:

• Has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a member or members of the public at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
• Has in the past and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or
• Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
• Has the Registrant in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable in the future to act dishonestly.

20. The issue of impairment is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, and it required the Panel to consider the central issues of insight, remediation, remorse and the risk of repetition. The Panel should look to past conduct and to the future in assessing risk of repetition. The Panel must at all times keep at the forefront of its mind the fundamental considerations and overarching objectives of protecting the public and the wider public interest, including the reputation of, and public confidence in the profession.

21. The Panel determined that limbs a, b and c of the Grant test were engaged.

22. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment.

23. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

24. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel carefully considered all the documentary evidence provided to include the character references provided on behalf of the Registrant, which demonstrated that he had expressed remorse.

25.The Panel also had regard to the Judge’s sentencing remarks which noted:
“…the behaviours that you have demonstrated on these occasions may not constitute what might be described as an established pattern of behaviour, but the repeat aspect of the offending involving two victims of sexual assault on occasions three years apart when you were in drink after you had been promptly challenged by the first victim is a particular area of concern…”

26.The Panel noted that the Registrant was assessed as medium risk of further offending and a high risk of serious harm to males.

27.The Panel noted that the Registrant has not recently engaged with the HCPC as a result of his imprisonment. The panel had no evidence of reflection, remediation or insight.

28.In the absence of any evidence of insight or remediation, the Panel considered that there would be a significant risk of repetition if the Registrant were permitted to practise without restriction.

29.The Panel also found the “public” component of impairment to be satisfied in this case. The Panel considered the Registrant is a risk to the public, conviction to be serious resulting in a significant custodial sentence and inclusion on the Sex Offenders Register. A member of the public, knowing of the Registrant’s conviction surrounding the sexual assaults on two males would be shocked and undoubtedly expect some restriction to be placed on his registration. Public confidence in the profession and in the regulator would be seriously undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

30.The Panel accordingly found that the Registrants fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public component.

Decision on Sanction

31.The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC. She took the Panel to relevant parts of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy dated March 2019 and reminded the Panel that the primary function of any sanction is to protect the public and this includes consideration of the following:
• Any risks that the Registrant might pose to those who use or need their services;
• The deterrent effect on other Registrants;
• Public confidence in the profession concerned; and
• Public confidence in the regulatory process.

32.Ms Bass stated that as the Panel had found impairment on both grounds, all those factors should be taken into account.

33.Ms Bass referred the Panel to the Sanctions guidance surrounding Convictions and she advised of the options open to the Panel, indicating these should be considered in ascending order. Ms Bass reminded the Panel that the Registrant had received a custodial sentence of 43 months and indicated that this may provide some guidance to the Panel in terms of what Sanction is available.

34.There were no submissions made on behalf of the Registrant.

35.The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of
a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession.

36.The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

37. The Panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks, namely that the Registrant has a previous positive good character. With regards to mitigation, the Panel took into account the following factors:

• Remorse
• Positive testimonials

38. By way of aggravating factors:

• The Registrant was convicted of 4 counts of serious sexual assault and received a custodial sentence
• Repeated behaviour in relation to 2 victims
• The Registrant is required to sign the Sex Offenders Register for an indefinite period
• No evidence of reflection, remediation or insight

39. The Panel had regard to the Sanction’s guidance, to include Sanctions in serious cases. The Panel considered the guidance surrounding Conviction cases and cases involving Sexual misconduct. The Panel noted the guidance contained at paragraph 85:

Sex offender
Although inclusion on the sex offenders’ database is not a punishment, it does serve to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. 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.

40. When considering the options available, the Panel determined that the nature of the case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.

41. The Panel determined that a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s Conviction for the sexual assaults, and would not adequately protect the public nor satisfy the public interest in this case.

42. The Panel noted that the Registrants clinical capabilities are not in dispute. However, the panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate as the Panel could not formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s sexual misconduct and conviction. Furthermore, the Registrant is currently serving a custodial sentence, therefore conditions would not be practical or realistic.

43. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order however, in light of its conclusion regarding the seriousness of the concerns, the attitudinal nature of the concerns, no evidence of any insight, reflection or remediation and the consequent risk of repetition, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate or proportionate.

44. The Sanctions Policy states that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last
resort for serious persistent and deliberate acts including:

• Sexual misconduct
• Criminal Convictions for serious offences

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

• Lacks insight


45. In the Panel’s judgement all the criteria for a Striking Off Order
are applicable in this case. The public is entitled to expect members of the
profession to behave with decency.

46. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s conviction for sexual assaults was so serious as to be incompatible with his remaining on the Register. The Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order was required to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain confidence in the profession and its Regulator. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour was wholly unacceptable and was incompatible with registration.

47. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case was a Striking Off Order.

Order

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

 

Notes

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

 

Interim Order
As the Striking Off Order cannot take effect until the end of the 28-day appeal period, the Panel has considered whether an interim order is required in the specific circumstances of this case. It may only make an interim order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest or in your own interest until the sanction takes effect.


Submissions on Interim Order
The Panel took account of the submissions made by Ms Bass. She submitted that an Interim Order was necessary to address the risk to public and to uphold the confidence in profession.

She informed the Panel that the sanction which it has imposed would not take effect for 28 days. She submitted that an 18 month Interim Order would address the risks identified by the Panel and cover any potential period of appeal.


There were no submissions on behalf of the Registrant.


Decision and reasons on Interim Order
The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Registrant respectively. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.


The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The Panel had regard to the seriousness of the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order in reaching the decision to impose an interim order.


The Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case, due to the reasons already identified in the panel’s determination for imposing the substantive order.


The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.
This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Oliver Hough

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
16/12/2024 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off
;