Mr Joseph Steel

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel first considered the issue of service as the Registrant was not
in attendance or represented at the hearing.
2. The Panel had been provided with the Registrant’s e-mail within the
Certificate signed by the Registrar dated 12 October 2023. This
confirmed the email address for the Registrant.
3. The Panel had sight of the Notice of Hearing dated 12 October 2023,
which confirmed the date and time of the hearing, as well as informing
him this would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant an
opportunity to make submissions at the hearing and informed him that
the Panel may proceed in his absence.
4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that good service
was effected by notifying the Registrant of the time and date of the
hearing at his registered email address or by post to the address within
the HCPC register.
5. The Panel was satisfied that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the
hearing today had been served on the Registrant by email. The Panel
determined that notice had been properly served in accordance with the
Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence
Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’).
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
6. Ms Bernard-Stevenson invited the Panel to proceed in the absence of
the Registrant. She submitted that the allegations dated back to 2020,
they involved serious sexual offences, there was a public interest in the
expeditious disposal of these proceedings, the Registrant had voluntarily
absented himself and any disadvantage to the Registrant is mitigated by
the 19 page response from him contained within the bundle. She also
reminded the Panel that the expert witness was in attendance and any
relisting would be delayed as the expert’s availability would have to be
considered.
7. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the
absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal
Assessor. The Panel had in mind the need to exercise its discretion to
proceed with the utmost care and caution. The Panel was satisfied that
5
the Registrant had received reasonable notice of today’s hearing and
had waived his right to appear. The Registrant had emailed stating “I do
not wish to adjourn; I also do not want to attend anymore. You have my
consent to continue the hearing without my presence’”.
8. The Panel determined that it was fair and reasonable and in the interest
of justice to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as it had found that
good service has been effected and that there is a general public interest
for a hearing to take place within a reasonable time. It determined that it
is in the interests of justice that the hearing takes place as soon as
possible.
9. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily absented
himself as per his email, no adjournment had been sought and
adjourning would serve no useful purpose. Any disadvantage to the
Registrant is significantly outweighed by the public interest in ensuring
that this hearing proceeds expeditiously. Additionally the Panel had sight
of the Registrant’s response within the bundle. The Panel therefore
determined to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
Application to proceed in private
10. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made an application for these proceedings to be
held partly in private on the grounds of the private life of the Registrant
given the references to his health.
11. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel
considered the principle of open justice and had regard to the HCPTS
Practice note “Conducting Hearings in Private”. There were two broad
circumstances in which all or part of the hearing may be in private:
 where it was in the interest of justice to do so; or
 where it is done to protect the private life of the registrant,
complainant, witness or service user.
12. The Panel determined that part of the hearing would be in private, in
order to protect the private life of the Registrant, especially in relation to
the health matters.
Background
13. The Registrant began working at Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust from
3 August 2015.
6
14. At the time that the concerns arose, the Registrant was employed as a
Band 6 Physiotherapist.
15. The Registrant referred himself to the HCPC on 15 July 2020. At this
time, he informed the HCPC that he had been suspended from his
workplace following his arrest by South Yorkshire Police.
16. The Registrant also informed the HCPC of long-standing cannabis use
and that he had received a caution for the possession of this drug.
17. Following this initial referral, a further referral was received from
Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). This referral included the
Registrant’s suspension letter.
18. In the second referral, the Trust stated that it was notified on 12 July
2020 that the Registrant had been arrested on the evening of 12 July
2020, held overnight and released on bail on 13 July 2020. The Trust
further explained that during a police interview, the Registrant admitted
to 6 offences of indecent exposure to young women between 1 and 11
July 2020.
19. The Registrant was subsequently convicted on 2 September 2020, for 7
sexual offences and sentenced to a 8 month suspended term of
imprisonment, supervision requirement for a period of 2 years, activity
requirement (participate in accredited programme (sexual offending
programme)) for 43 days and curfew requirement with electronic
monitoring for 5 months. In addition to the above, the Registrant also has
to sign onto the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 10 years.
The Hearing
20. No formal admissions had been made.
21. In relation to witnesses, on 24 November 2023 the Registrant confirmed;
“I am happy for Paul Briggs, Diana Simpson and Anita Frost's witness
statements to be included in the final hearing bundle to provide
background to the allegations even though the witnesses have not been
called to give evidence at the final hearing. I do not raise any objections
to what is stated in their witness statements.” Accordingly the HCPC did
not call these three witnesses to the hearing.
22. The HCPC relied upon the expert report of Dr Pardeep Grewal,
Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 18 July 2023. Dr Grewal attended the
hearing and was the only live witness on behalf of the HCPC.
7
23. The HCPC relied upon the Certificate of Conviction. The HCPC also
relied upon the witness statements of Paul Briggs, the MG4 (charge
sheet) dated 5 August 2020, and the MG5 (case summary) dated 5
August 2020.
24. Ms Bernard-Stevenson relied upon her written opening note as well as
submissions made at the hearing.
25. The Panel did not have any live evidence or submissions from the
Registrant to consider.
Decision on Facts:
26. Before making any findings on the facts, the Panel heard and accepted
the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has read the bundle and
considered all relevant documents.
27. In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel has borne in mind that the
burden of proof rests on the HCPC and it is for the HCPC to prove the
Allegation irrespective of any admissions made by the Registrant. The
standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the
balance of probabilities. The Panel has carefully considered the
evidence, giving appropriate weight to the documentary evidence.
28. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has no previous fitness to
practice history.
Particular 1 a-g - Proved
29. The HCPC obtained a Certificate of Conviction from South Yorkshire
Magistrates’ Court signed by a representative of the court on 27 July
2022. This confirmed that the Registrant was convicted on 2 September
2020. A prison sentence was given as the offence was marked as being
‘so serious’ and the Registrant had been ‘targeting lone women in the
street, ensuring they witnessed your actions’. The rest of the punishment
that was ordered was as outlined above in the ‘Background’ section.
30. The fact of the Registrant’s conviction as alleged in Particular 1 is proved
by the extract of the conviction. The Panel relied on Rule 10 (d) of the
Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence)
(Procedure) Rules 2003 which states that “where a registrant has been
convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of
conviction (or, in Scotland an extract of conviction) shall be admissible
as proof of the findings of fact upon which it was based.”
8
31. Accordingly, Particular 1 was proved to the relevant standard.
Particular 2 – not considered
32. The evidence of Dr Grewal was unchallenged and he made himself
available for cross examination at the hearing.
33. Ms Bernard-Stevenson elected to not proceed with the health allegation
(Particular 2) at this stage, but reserved her right to pursue them
dependent upon the outcome of the conduct allegations (Particular 1).
Decision on Impairment:
34. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Bernard-Stevenson
on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice
Notes on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and “Conviction and Caution
Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
35. The Panel has approached its decision on impairment by looking at the
situation as it is today. It has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note
“Fitness to Practise Impairment”.
36. The Panel’s primary objective is the protection of the public, the
maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring
and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
37. In reaching a decision on impairment, the Panel has considered all of the
evidence and the submissions and has exercised its’ own judgment on
impairment.
38. Whilst there is no statutory definition of impairment, the Panel was
assisted by the guidance provided by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth
Shipman Report, as adopted by the High Court in CHRE v NMC &
Grant[2011]. In particular, the Panel considered whether its findings of
fact showed that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in that
he:
a) Has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put
a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b) Has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the
medical profession into disrepute; and/or
c) Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one
of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession;
9
39. The Panel noted there was no character evidence or submission of
references on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel did accept that the
Registrant had no previous regulatory findings against him.
40. By reason of his conviction, the Registrant was in breach of the following
standards of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics
(2016):
 Standard 9.1 - “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the
public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.” The Registrant
had abused the public’s trust in him by reason of the offences and
conviction.
41. 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 referred to in the
case of Grant. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own
practice as a Physiotherapist, 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.
42. With regard to the “personal” component of impairment, the Panel
acknowledged the regret and remorse displayed by the Registrant
within his written documentation. The Panel accepted Dr Grewal’s
evidence that the Registrant displayed good insight and acknowledged
that he recognised the triggers for his own behaviour.
43. However, the Panel had little evidence of remediation. There was no
other evidence put before the Panel.
44. The Panel also found the “public” component of impairment to be
satisfied in this case. A member of the public would be extremely
concerned if a Physiotherapist convicted of such sexual offences was
permitted to continue in practice without restriction. An informed member
of the public would be shocked if a front line clinician was practising
without restriction despite being on a 10 year sexual offender register. In
the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant poses a potential risk to members
of the public and a finding of current impairment is necessary for public
protection.
45. In addition, the Panel considered that a finding of current impairment is
necessary to uphold professional standards. Public confidence in the
10
profession and in the HCPC as its Regulator would be seriously
undermined if there were no finding of impairment given the gravity of
the conviction.
46. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is
impaired having regard to both the “personal” and “public” components
of impairment.
Decision on Sanction:
47. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Bernard-Stevenson and in
reaching a decision on the sanction it has taken these submissions into
account. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the HCPC do not make
any specific submissions on sanction and referred the Panel to the
Sanctions Policy. She submitted that the aggravating factors were that
there was a pattern of unacceptable behaviour with multiple incidents of
indecent exposure, these were not isolated and there is a risk of
repetition.
48. Ms Bernard-Stevenson also submitted that the sexual misconduct was
categorised as serious as per the Sanctions Policy and it was unclear if
the sentence is complete as there was no objective evidence as to the
completion of probation as claimed by the Registrant.
49. Ms Bernard-Stevenson reminded the Panel that Dr Grewal had
confirmed the presence of insight. She accepted there was clear
evidence of remorse as per the Registrant’s email.
50. There was no evidence from the Registrant in relation to sanctions for
the Panel to consider.
51. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and has reached
its decision on sanction by following the guidance in the HCPC
Sanctions Policy.
52. The Panel has had regard to all the evidence presented. It reminded
itself that a sanction is not intended to be punitive although it may have a
punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind the principles of fairness and
proportionality and that a sanction must be reasonable and the least
restrictive possible.
53. The primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the
perspective of the risk which the Registrant may pose to patients and to
the wider public interest; namely the deterrent effect on other
11
Registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the
regulatory process.
54. 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.
55. The Panel began its deliberations on sanction by considering the
mitigating factors. The Registrant was apologetic, showed remorse and
the Panel agreed with the expert that insight had been displayed, with
steps taken to remediate and help being sought, albeit there was no
objective evidence to verify this so limited weight could be attributed to
this. The Registrant had self-referred to the HCPC and had been
engaging with the HCPC and was entitled not to attend the hearing.
56. The Panel then considered the aggravating factors and considered that
the nature of the offence was sexual and this was serious as per the
Sanctions Policy. The offences were committed in a Trust lease vehicle
indicative of a breach of trust. There was a pattern of unacceptable
behaviour given the number of incidents, which increased the risk. The
Panel also considered the potential emotional harm caused to the
victims, albeit acknowledging these were not service users.
57. The offending related to sexual misconduct, which is described as “a
very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and
public confidence in the profession” and can be directed towards
members of the public (paragraph 76 of the Sanction Policy). The Panel
also noted the following guidance:
“Where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence,
and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a
panel, normally the panel should not allow the registrant to resume
unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily
completed” (paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy).
58. The Registrant’s actions had led to convictions by the criminal court. The
Registrant was still on the Sex Offenders Register which is normally a
strong factor against a return to unrestricted practice, as confirmed in the
guidance:
“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
12
allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while
they are on the sex offenders’ database” (paragraph 85 of the
Sanctions Policy).
59. The Panel next considered the sanctions in ascending order of gravity.
60. It has found that it is not appropriate to make No Order because of the
serious nature of the incident.
61. A Caution Order is not appropriate because the conduct found proved
was too serious. The misconduct was of a serious nature, there is a risk
of repetition and no independent evidence of remediation.
62. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel
did not consider conditions as appropriate for sexual misconduct. This
offending was outside the workplace. There were no workable conditions
that could be formulated in this specific case. The Registrant’s
misconduct was serious and there was a risk of repetition. The
Registrant remained on the Sex Offenders Register. In the
circumstances it has determined that the Registrant’s misconduct was
too serious for a Conditions of Practice Order to be appropriate.
63. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. It acknowledged there
was some insight. The Panel considered the offences were serious
involving sexual misconduct, an absence of remediation evidenced and
there remained a risk of repetition. The Panel considered it was not in
the interest of the public for there to be a Suspension in such
circumstances.
64. Finally, the Panel considered a Striking Off Order, which was an option
open to the Panel. The Panel were fully aware that a Striking Off Order
is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate, or reckless
acts involving sexual misconduct and criminal convictions. The Panel
was satisfied that given the circumstances of this case a Striking Off
Order was necessary and appropriate. The Panel remained concerned
about the risk of repetition.
65. The Panel was satisfied that due to the nature and gravity of the
concerns that any lesser sanction than a Striking Off Order would be
insufficient to protect the public, and maintain public confidence in the
profession and in the regulatory process. The serious misconduct was
fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the HCPC register.
13
66. The Panel was satisfied that a Striking Off Order was the most
appropriate sanction, having considered lesser sanctions before arriving
at this order.
67. Following the panel’s decision, Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that
the HCPC’s view was that the Panel had discharged the overarching
objective of protecting the public and would thus discontinue the health
Allegation (Particular 2). In making a decision on the application to
discontinue Particular 2, the Panel reconstituted itself as a Health
Committee. Following legal advice, the Panel agreed to this
discontinuance of Particular 2, given its determination on the primary
allegation.

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

Interim Suspension Order:
The Panel makes 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.

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 an
Order) the final determination of that appeal; subject to a maximum of 18
months.

History of Hearings for Mr Joseph Steel