Juan P Saunar

Previous decisions/hearing

1. On 29 July 2021, the decision was made by a Panel Chair of the HCPTS that the evidence of Colleagues 1 and 4 should be heard in private.

2. A substantive hearing commenced on 27 June 2022 (“the June 2022 Hearing”), but the Panel had to recuse itself before the hearing completed due to a potential connection between one of the panellists and a witness in the case. Four witnesses, namely MH, Colleague 1, Colleague 3, and Colleague 4, gave live witness evidence. The Registrant attended and Counsel cross-examined Colleagues 1, 3, and 4 on his behalf.

3. At a preliminary hearing held on 31 March 2023, the decision was made to admit into evidence the transcripts of oral evidence of witnesses MH, Colleague 3, and Colleague 4 within the course of the current hearing. The decision was also made to hear Colleague 5’s evidence in private.

4. The current hearing took place with a fresh panel.

5. This is a redacted public copy of the Panel’s decision.

Preliminary Matters

Service

6. The Panel was provided with proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 23 August 2024. The Panel was satisfied that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in absence

7. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and that it was in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

8. The Panel was provided with evidence of numerous emails sent to the Registrant by a Hearings Officer of the HCPTS. The Panel was informed that the Registrant had not responded.

9. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which included reference to guidance given in the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.

10. The Panel concluded, from the Registrant’s absence and complete lack of engagement regarding the current hearing, that he had decided to absent himself from the hearing. He did not have legal representation but had attended the June 2022 hearing and therefore was presumed to have an understanding of the process. He had not requested an adjournment and there was nothing to suggest that he would attend if the hearing were to be adjourned to a later date. The HCPC had arranged for two witnesses to attend the hearing. There had been a delay in the process, in that the June 2022 hearing had taken place over two years ago. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was in the public interest to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Application to amend the Allegation

11. Ms Collins applied to amend the Allegation by adding the words “and/or” between each Particular specified in Particular 10 and Particular 11.

12. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

13. The Panel decided to allow the proposed amendments on the basis that they clarified the position taken by the HCPC, but did not alter the substance of the Allegation and caused no prejudice to the Registrant.

Hearsay application in relation to evidence provided by Colleague 1

14. The Panel granted the HCPC’s application to admit into evidence the transcripts of oral evidence of Colleague 1 from the June 2022 hearing.

Witnesses

15. The HCPC relied on hearsay evidence, including HCPC witness statements and transcripts of the June 2022 hearing, in relation to the following witnesses:

• Colleague 1;

• Colleague 3;

• Colleague 4;

• MH.

16. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give live evidence:

• Colleague 5;

• RA.

Background

17. At the relevant time, the Registrant was a Band 5 Radiographer.

18. On 30 June 2020, the HCPC received a referral in relation to the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleague 1, Colleague 4, and Colleague 5, who were all colleagues working with the Registrant at the relevant time.

19. It is alleged that the Registrant made inappropriate comments to Colleagues 1, 4, and 5 and behaved towards them in a way that was sexual.

20. It is also alleged that the Registrant then attempted to coerce Colleague 4 into providing the HCPC with a positive statement on his behalf after the HCPC investigation had commenced.

21. An employer investigation was conducted in March 2020, but the Registrant left and did not participate in it.

Decision on Facts

22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor advised on the burden and standard of proof; the approach to take to an assessment of the credibility of witnesses and to the hearsay material, with particular emphasis on the transcripts; the meaning of the word “sexual”; whether the Panel could use a finding in relation to one complainant when considering the complaint made by another complainant; and the relevance of the Registrant’s good character.

Particular 1(a) – Proved

1. Between September 2019 and November 2019, you;

a) on multiple occasions said to Colleague 4 ‘I love you’ or words to that effect,

23. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 4 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

24. For those reasons, the Panel found Particular 1(a) proved.

Particular 1(b) – Proved

(b) attempted to kiss Colleague 4,

25. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 4 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

26. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 4, the Panel found Colleague 4 to be a reliable and credible witness and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Particular 1(b) was proved.

Particulars 1(c) and 1(d) – Proved

c) touched Colleague 4’s hips and
d) told Colleague 4 that they were ‘sexy’ or words to that effect,

27. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 4 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

28. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 4, the Panel found Colleague 4 to be a reliable and credible witness and was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Particulars 1(c) and 1(d) were proved.

Particular 1(e) – Proved

e) patted Colleague 4’s buttocks twice.

29. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 4 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

30. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 4, the Panel found that Particular 1(e) was proved.

Particulars 2(a) and 2(b) – Proved

2. Between October 2019 and November 2019, you;

a) on multiple occasions, addressed Colleague 5 as ‘beautiful’ and/or ‘gorgeous’ or words to that effect,

b) ignored Colleague 5’s requests to stop addressing her as ‘beautiful’ and/or ‘gorgeous’,

31. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 5 to the Panel was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

32. In oral evidence, Colleague 5 provided evidence which was consistent with her witness statement.

33. Based on Colleague 5’s documentary and oral evidence, together with the hearsay evidence of Colleague 1, the Panel found that Particulars 2(a) and 2(b) were proved.

Particular 2(c) – Proved

c) assisted Colleague 5 putting on their lead gown and goggles, despite an indication that Colleague 5 did not want you to do so,

34. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 5 to the Panel was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

35. Based on Colleague 5’s documentary and oral evidence, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Particular 2(c) was proved.

Particulars 2(d) and 2(e) – Proved

d) took photographs of Colleague 5 without their consent whilst in theatre,

e) when confronted about the photographs at allegation 2d above, you responded with, ‘my friends do not see red heads often’, or words to that effect.

36. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 5 before the Panel was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

37. In evidence before the Panel, Colleague 5 gave evidence that was consistent with her witness statement.

38. Based on Colleague 5’s documentary and oral evidence, the Panel found that Particulars 2(d) and 2(e) were proved.

Particular 3(a) – Proved

3. Between October 2019 and January 2020, you;

a) on more than one occasion, addressed Colleague 1 as ‘gorgeous’ or words to that effect,

39. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

40. On that basis, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Particular 3(a) was proved.

Particular 3(b) – Proved

b) addressed Colleague 1 as ‘beautiful’ or words to that effect,

41. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

42. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel was satisfied that Particular 3(b) was proved.

Particular 3(c) – Proved

c) made the following comment to Colleague 1 whilst outside the unisex changing room, ‘you are smaller than what I had thought’, or words to that effect.

43. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

44. Based on the hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel was satisfied that Particular 3(c) was proved.

Particular 4 – Not Proved

4. In or around January 2020, you entered the changing room where you were aware Colleague 1 was possibly changing, without knocking.

45. The Panel concluded that Particular 4 was not proved.

Particulars 5(a) and 5(b) – Proved

5. On 14 December 2019, whilst at the Christmas staff party, you;

a) told Colleague 1 that they were ‘sexy’ or words to that effect,
b) offered to buy Colleague 1 a drink.

46. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

47. Based on the transcript of evidence, together with the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel found that Particulars 5(a) and 5(b) were proved.

Particulars 6(a), 6(b), and 6(c) – Proved

6. On 24 December 2019;

a) you said to Colleague 1 ‘you are looking very slim in your tunic’, or words to that effect,
b) you told Colleague 1 that her ‘boobs looked good’ or words to that effect,
c) whilst making the comment stated at allegation 6b above, you gestured breasts with your hands.

48. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel found that Particulars 6(a), 6(b), and 6(c) were proved.

Particular 7 – Proved

7. On 22 January 2020, during a departmental phone call, you said the following to Colleague 1, ‘you have a beautiful voice’ or words to that effect.

49. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel found that Particular 7 was proved.

Particulars 8(a)(i), 8(a)(ii), and 8(a)(iii) – Proved

8. You did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries, in that;
a) between October 2019 and November 2019, you;

i. on multiple occasions, commented on the amount of make-up Colleague 5 wore,
ii. on multiple occasions, queried why Colleague 5 did not have a boyfriend,
iii. suggested that Colleague 5 take you to London for a tour.

50. In her evidence before the Panel, Colleague 5 provided evidence which was consistent with her previous account.

51. Based on the oral evidence and hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 5, the Panel found that Particulars 8(a)(i), 8(a)(ii), and 8(a)(iii) were proved.

Particulars 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii) – Proved

b) on 30 December 2019, you;

i. gave Colleague 1, 9 red roses,
ii. applied pressure to Colleague 1 to accept the red roses after they had declined your offer,

52. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

53. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel found that Particulars 8(b)(i) and 8(b)(ii) were proved.

Particulars 8(c)(i) and 8(c)(ii) – Proved

c) in or around January 2020, you;

i. applied pressure to Colleague 1 to accept Japanese food after they had declined your offer,
ii. placed the Japanese food in Colleague 1’s bag without their acceptance and walked off.

54. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 in her HCPC statement was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

55. Based on the hearsay evidence provided by Colleague 1, including the transcript of evidence wherein she adopted her HCPC statement, the Panel was satisfied that Particulars 8(c)(i) and 8(c)(ii) were proved.

Particular 8(d) – Proved

(d) on 22 January 2020, during the departmental phone call referred to above at allegation 7, you said the following to Colleague 1; ‘you sound like a 14/15 year old’, or words to that effect.

56. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 in her HCPC statement was consistent with an earlier account provided by her on the same issue.

57. Based on the hearsay evidence provided by Colleague 1, including the transcript of evidence wherein she adopted her HCPC statement, the Panel was satisfied that Particular 8(d) was proved.

Particular 8(e) – Proved

(e) In or around December 2019, whilst smirking, you asked Colleague 1 ‘what is on your neck’, or words to that effect.

58. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence given by Colleague 1 at the June 2022 hearing was consistent with earlier accounts provided by her on the same issue.

59. Based on the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 1, the Panel was satisfied that Particular 8(e) was proved.

Particular 9(a) – Proved

9.Between 20 November 2020 and 02 December 2020, you contacted Colleague 4 in an attempt to coerce them into providing the HCPC with a supporting statement, in that;

(a) On 20 November 2020, you contacted Colleague 4 through Facebook
messenger and stated ‘only you can save me’ or words to that effect,

60. Based on the documentary evidence, supported by the transcript and the other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 4, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant had attempted to coerce Colleague 4 into providing the HCPC with a supporting statement, as set out in the Facebook Messenger message of 20 November 2020, and it found that Particular 9(a) was proved.

Particulars 9(b)(i) and 9(b)(ii) – Proved

(b) On 23 November 2020 you called Colleague 4 and;

i. asked them to give a statement saying ‘we are ok now and have moved on’ or words to that effect
ii. stated that you would give Colleague 4 ‘anything they wanted, even a new case of their phone’ or words to that effect,

61. Based on the documentary evidence before it, and supported by other hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 4, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Particulars 9(b)(i) and 9(b)(ii) were proved.

Particulars 9(c)(i), 9(c)(ii), 9(c)(iii), 9(c)(iv), and 9(c)(v) – Proved

(c) On 02 December 2020 sent a text message to Colleague 4 in attempt to direct the contents of your requested statement, in that you said;

(i) You can include in your statement that what happened between us was not a big deal’, or words to that effect,
(ii) ‘it was just dealt withing the same day’ or words to that effect
(iii) ‘they just misunderstood what you said about me’ or words to that effect
(iv) ‘you do not want any trouble’ or words to that effect
(v) ‘that you are super annoyed with me that time which was true, but within the day it was all sorted out and what you said was just a misunderstanding’ or words to that effect

62. Based on the documentary evidence before it, together with the hearsay evidence relating to Colleague 4, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Particulars 9(c)(i), 9(c)(ii), 9(c)(iii), 9(c)(iv), and 9(c)(v) were proved.

Particular 10 – Proved in relation to 1(b), 1(c), 1(e), and 6(c)

10. Your conduct in relation to 1a and/or 1b and/or 1c and/or 1d and/or 1e and/or 2a and/or 2b and/or 2c and/or 2d and/or 2e and/or 3a and/or 3b and/or 3c and/or 4 and/or 5a and/or 5b, and/or 6a and/or 6b and/or 6c and/or 7 above was sexual.

63. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the conduct in Particulars 1 to 7 inclusive was sexual. The definition put forward was taken from Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which states:

“penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that

a. whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is of its nature sexual, or

b. because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances, or the purpose of any person in relation to it, (or both), it is sexual.”

64. The Panel adopted that definition when considering Particular 10, together with relevant case law provided by the Legal Assessor, which included reference to the case of GMC -v- Haris [2020] EWHC 2518, which suggested that to amount to “sexual” behaviour, the behaviour would need to be “overtly sexual”.

65. The Panel concluded that Particulars 1(a) and 1(d) were not capable of being sexual as they were allegations of words said, not things done. However, the Panel concluded that the areas of Colleague 4’s body which the Registrant touched, or attempted to touch as found proved in 1(b), 1(c), and 1(e), namely her lips, hip, and buttocks, were, by their nature, capable of being sexual, and when seen in the context of the words that had been said to Colleague 4 on other occasions, as found proved in Particulars 1(a) and 1(d), the actions were sexual.

66. The Panel concluded that Particulars 2(a), 2(b), and 2(e) were not capable of being sexual as they were allegations of words said, not things done. The Panel concluded that Particulars 2(c) and 2(d), which involved assisting Colleague 5 to put on her lead gown and goggles and taking photographs of her in theatre without her consent, amounted to inappropriate behaviour, but there was insufficient evidence with which to conclude that they were sexual.

67. The Panel concluded that Particulars 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c) were not capable of being sexual as they were allegations of words said, not things done.

68. The Panel concluded that Particulars 5(a) and 5(b) were not capable of being sexual as they were allegations of words said, not things done.

69. The Panel concluded that Particulars 6(a) and 6(b) were not capable of being sexual as they were allegations of words said to Colleague 1, not things done. However, the Panel concluded that the areas of Colleague 1’s body which the Registrant’s gesture in Particular 6(c) related to, namely her breasts, were, by their nature, capable of being sexual, and when seen in the context of the words that had been said to Colleague 1, both on a different occasion as found proved in Particulars 6(a) and at the time of the gesture in Particular 6(c), the action was overtly sexual.

70. The Panel concluded that Particular 7(a) was not capable of being sexual as it was an allegation of words said, not things done.

71. In summary, the Panel found that Particulars 1(b), 1(c), 1(e), and 6(c) were sexual.

Decision on Grounds

72. Ms Collins submitted that the matters found proved amounted to a breach of the following HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (January 2016):

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.

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

73. Ms Collins submitted that the matters found proved were serious and amounted to misconduct.

74. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

75. The Panel considered each Particular that had been found proved separately.

76. The Panel concluded that the sexual behaviour in Particulars 1(b), 1(c), and 1(e), together with the context of the words spoken in Particulars 1(a) and 1(d), was clearly serious in nature and amounted to a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a Radiographer. It was the judgement of the Panel that the behaviour amounted to misconduct.

77. The Panel concluded that the behaviour in Particular 2(d) fell far below the expected standards. The Panel took account of Colleague 5’s evidence and inferred from this that the Registrant would have known that it was not permissible to take such a photo in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that Particular 2(d) amounted to misconduct. It was the judgement of the Panel that the remainder of Particular 2 fell below the expected standards but did not fall far below, and accordingly did not amount to misconduct.

78. The Panel concluded that the behaviour in Particular 3 was inappropriate, but did not amount to misconduct in that it was confined to two occasions and was not persistent.

79. The Panel concluded that the behaviour in Particular 5 was inappropriate but did not amount to misconduct in light of its context and the fact that it was confined to a single remark.

80. The Panel concluded that the sexual behaviour in Particular 6(c), together with the context of the words spoken in Particulars 6(a) and 6(b), was clearly serious in nature and amounted to a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a Radiographer. It was the judgement of the Panel that this behaviour amounted to misconduct.

81. The Panel concluded that the behaviour in Particular 7 was inappropriate but did not amount to misconduct in light of its context and the fact that it was confined to a single remark.

82. The Panel concluded that the persistency of the failure to maintain professional boundaries found proved in Particular 8 was behaviour which fell seriously below the standards to be expected of a Radiographer. It was the judgement of the Panel that this behaviour amounted to misconduct.

83. The Panel concluded that the coercive behaviour found proved in Particular 9 was behaviour which amounted to a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a Radiographer. It was the judgement of the Panel that this behaviour amounted to misconduct.

84. In summary, the Panel found that Particulars 1, 2(d), 6, 8, and 9 amounted to misconduct, but not the remainder of the Particulars.

Decision on Impairment

85. Ms Collins submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired, both on the personal and public component, by reason of his misconduct, in light of the seriousness of the matters found proved and the lack of remediation demonstrated by the Registrant.

86. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

87. In considering the issue of current impairment of fitness practice, the Panel took account of a reference, dated 21 September 2020, from the Registrant’s subsequent employer, stating that there had been no concerns in the course of his employment there. The Panel regarded this as favourable to the Registrant, in that the Registrant had not repeated his behaviour whilst in future employment between the time of the Allegation and September 2020.

88. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was remediable. However, the Panel had been provided with no evidence of remorse, regret, insight, or other remediation other than the 21 September 2020 reference.

89. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour could not be regarded as an isolated event; to the contrary, it had spanned a period of time and had involved three colleagues.

90. In those circumstances, the Panel concluded that there was a very real risk that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct and would thereby pose a risk of similar harm to colleagues or other members of the public in future if permitted to practise unrestricted.

91. Accordingly, it was the judgement of the Panel that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

92. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenant of the profession and had brought the profession into disrepute by reason of his misconduct. He had indulged in sexual behaviour with Colleagues 1 and 4, had repeatedly breached professional boundaries with Colleagues 1 and 5, and had indulged in coercive behaviour with Colleague 4 in an attempt to evade appropriate action by his Regulator.

93. It was the judgement of the Panel that confidence in the profession and maintenance of standards within the profession would be adversely affected if a finding of impairment were not made in those circumstances.

94. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

95. Ms Collins submitted that the following aggravating factors were present:

• The Registrant’s misconduct was directed toward three separate female colleagues and showed a pattern of behaviour;

• The conduct took place over several months;

• The misconduct took place both inside and outside the Registrant’s employment as a Radiographer;

• A patient was said to have witnessed the Registrant’s behaviour on at least one occasion.

96. Ms Collins submitted that sanction was a matter for the judgement of the Panel. She urged the Panel to consult the HCPC Sanctions Policy, including the section dealing with serious cases, which included “Failure to work in partnership” and “Sexual Misconduct”.

97. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

98. The Panel understood that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive but is to protect the public and the wider public interest, which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

99. The Panel took account of the HCPC Sanctions Policy. It applied the principle of proportionality, weighing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public and the wider public interest. It considered the least restrictive sanction first.

100. The Panel regarded the following as aggravating factors:

• The conduct amounted to a pattern of behaviour involving three separate female colleagues;

• The conduct spanned 2-3 months;

• The conduct took place both outside and inside the Registrant’s place of employment as a Radiographer;

• The conduct had a negative impact on colleagues;

• A patient was said to have witnessed the conduct on at least one occasion.

101. The Panel regarded the following as mitigating factors:

• the Registrant’s previous good character;

• the positive reference from the Registrant’s subsequent place of employment.

102. The positive reference referred to above consisted of an email dated 21 September 2020, sent by Harefield Hospital in response to a query from the employer, in which details of the Allegation had been disclosed. It read:

“Thank you for your email and providing an update to this investigation … I can confirm that [the Registrant] is working independently in some of the modalities that he works in. For example, he works independently in the general area and CT and has been doing for the last 2 months. However, he is training in the cath labs, so is under supervision but this is for clinical competency reasons and not related to anything else. As previously stated, I have not been made aware of any concerns from other staff members or patients regarding [the Registrant]’s conduct. He seems to have integrated well into the department and therefore no measures have been put in place to mitigate any risk - please advise if you think this is necessary.

I have had a few conversations with [the Registrant] regarding this case as he made me aware of your input, however they have all been informal and therefore not documented. If there were any concerns regarding his behaviour or clinical competencies then of course this would be documented appropriately. Our HR department and Hospital Director are aware of your ongoing investigation - I informed them initially and I think that they have received something more formal from yourselves.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can help with”.

103. In view of the nature of the misconduct, namely sexual and coercive behaviour, the Panel concluded that to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order would be insufficient to protect the public or to maintain standards and uphold confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. In considering the criteria set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy, the Panel concluded that it could not be said that the misconduct was minor in nature, or that the Registrant had shown good insight or that he had undertaken appropriate remediation.

104. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order but concluded that conditions would not be workable due to the current lack of engagement by the Registrant and lack of information from him regarding his current employment status.

105. The Panel considered a Suspension Order.

106. The Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant had demonstrated no remorse, insight, or evidence of remediation.

107. However, the Panel concluded that the whilst the Registrant’s misconduct was serious, it did not fall at the highest end of the spectrum.

108. In relation to Colleague 1, the Registrant had made a gesture whilst stating that her “boobs looked good”, but had not taken this any further and specifically, had not touched her. In relation to Colleague 4, whilst the Panel accepted that the Registrant had repeated his behaviour on three separate occasions, nevertheless the behaviour found proved amounted to attempts to kiss, one incident of touching the hips, and one incident of patting the buttocks twice. It was the judgement of the Panel that this fell at the lower end of the spectrum of sexual misconduct.

109. The Panel took account of the fact that on other occasions, the Registrant stopped before taking his behaviour further. For example, in relation to Particular 5, when the Registrant told Colleague 1 that she was “sexy” and offered to buy her a drink at the Christmas party, he took the matter no further. Also, in relation to Particular 2(c) when he assisted Colleague 5 with putting on her lead gown and goggles, he did not touch her in any other unwanted way.

110. In relation to Particular 9, the Panel concluded that whilst the coercive behaviour involved an attempt to stop Colleague 4 from reporting him to his own Regulator, and was therefore serious, it was not threatening or intimidating. Again, it was the judgement of the Panel that the content of the messages concerned fell at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness for coercive behaviour.

111. The Panel took account of the Registrant’s good character and the email from Harefield Hospital, which confirmed that the Registrant had integrated well into his new department and that there had been no repetition of his misconduct.

112. The Panel concluded that a period of suspension would protect the public from the risk of harm for so long as the Order was in place. The Panel also concluded that confidence in the profession would be upheld, and standards would be maintained, if a period of suspension were to be imposed in light of the low level of seriousness of the misconduct which had been found.

113. The Panel gave consideration to a Striking Off Order but concluded that this would be disproportionate in light of the low level of seriousness of the misconduct, which did not cross the threshold into the need for Striking Off in the judgement of the Panel. In reaching its conclusion, the Panel took account of the significant adverse financial and reputational consequences that such an order would be likely to have for the Registrant.

114. The Panel gave careful thought to the length of the Suspension Order and concluded that a period of 4 months was sufficient in light of the mitigating features of the case, as set out in this determination.

115. Accordingly, it was the judgment of the Panel that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Suspension Order for a period of 4 months.

That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Juan P Saunar for a period of 4 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, Ms Collins applied for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period. Ms Collins applied for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to protect the public and the wider public interest in light of the Panel’s findings.

2. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been served with notice that such an application would be made in the Notice of Hearing.

3. For the reasons set out in its substantive decision, the Panel concluded there would be a real risk that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct if permitted to practise unrestricted. Accordingly, an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public pending any potential appeal.

4. The Panel also concluded that it was otherwise in the public interest for an Interim Order to be in place pending any potential appeal. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct was so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant were to be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice pending any appeal, and that an Interim Order was needed to maintain proper standards within the profession and to uphold the reputation of the profession and its Regulator. The Panel concluded that a reasonable member of the public, in possession of all the facts, would be shocked if no interim order were to be put in place during the appeal period.

5. The Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be workable for the same reasons as those set out in its determination on sanction dealing with the suitability of a substantive Conditions of Practice Order.

6. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the appropriate Interim Order in the circumstances was an Interim Suspension Order.

7. The Panel determined that the appropriate length for such an Interim Order was 18 months to cover the appeal period.

8. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months. If no appeal is brought, the Interim Order will expire at the end of the appeal period. If an appeal is brought, the Interim Order will expire at the time of the final determination of the appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Juan P Saunar

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
17/03/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Review Hearing	Suspended
11/10/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended