
Mr Derrick Denteh Kofi
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 (RA084662):
1. You coerced Person A, into having unprotected sex with you under the auspices of research with the promise of an exchange of money and/or an academic scholarship in the UK
2. Your conduct in relation to particular 1 was sexually motivated.
3. The matters set out in particulars 1 and 2 constitute misconduct.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing, specifying the hearing dates, 29 July 2024 until 1 August 2024, had been sent to the Registrant at his registered email address with the HCPC on 26 June 2024.
2. The Notice of Hearing contained information relating to the format and nature of the hearing. The HCPC received notification on 26 June 2024 that “delivery” of the email was “complete”. The Panel was satisfied that proper and reasonable notice of the hearing had been served on the Registrant in accordance with the Practice Note on Service of Documents.
Proceeding in absence
3. The Panel next considered proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. It noted that it has the power to do so under Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules (“the Rules”) if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant. The Panel must also consider all the circumstances of the case, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.
4. The Panel had already satisfied itself that service of the Notice of Hearing had been effected in accordance with the Rules.
5. The Panel was aware that its discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with care and caution. It noted the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant that the discretion whether to proceed must be exercised having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Registrant being a prime consideration, but balanced with fairness to the HCPC and to the public interest.
6. In reaching its decision, the Panel has noted that: there was no application for an adjournment; even if the hearing was adjourned to allow the Registrant to attend, this would not necessarily guarantee his attendance in the future. Additionally, two witnesses were available to give evidence.
7. The Panel noted that there had been recent correspondence sent to the Registrant from the HCPC, dating back to March 2024, to update him regarding the progress of the hearing. Several further emails were sent to the Registrant prior to the Hearing, however, there was no response from the Registrant.
8. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily chosen to absent himself. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
Background
9. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Radiographer.
10. At the relevant time the Registrant was employed by the School of Health and Society at the University of Salford (“the University”), as a Clinical Skills Teacher - Diagnostic Radiographer, a role he commenced on 22 August 2022.
11. On 17 March 2023, the University received a complaint from a member of the public residing in Ghana, alleging that the Registrant had had sexual intercourse with her, under the pretence that this was part of a research project and that in return for her participation there would be an exchange of money and/or a university scholarship to do Master’s study at the University.
12. The University carried out an investigation into the matter under its disciplinary procedures, during which the Registrant was suspended from duty.
13. On 14 April 2023, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC, as advised by the University.
14. On 03 May 2023, the University contacted the HCPC, attaching its investigation report and informing the Council that the Registrant was no longer employed at the University.
15. The report detailed the allegations that were investigated, namely that a complaint was received from Person A, via email on 18 March 2023, regarding alleged research carried out by the University into Serotonin levels in black women, which Person A was a participant of. It is alleged that the Registrant was leading research on behalf of the University of Salford in Ghana. The research required the Registrant to have sexual intercourse with the women, followed by inserting ‘strips’ into their vaginas for 20 minutes.
16. It is alleged that the Registrant promised the women £800 and a scholarship to the University in payment for the risk involved. It is alleged that following the sampling the team refused payment to the participants, giving excuses as to why payment was not forthcoming.
17. During the investigation, the Registrant stated that he was not leading the research on behalf of the University, and it was being undertaken at the request of a friend, a Physician Associate working with Saltpond District Hospital in the central region of Ghana. The Registrant stated that this friend also worked for a Health Screening company that was developing a prototype Sexually Transmitted Infection (“STI”) screening tool. During the disciplinary hearing meeting, the Registrant could not name this company and had no written information about the research, its aims or whether it had received ethical approval. There were no company logos on the test kits or packaging. The Registrant confirmed that he did not request that the participants complete consent forms or participant information forms and did not inform the participants who the research was being undertaken on behalf of. The report stated that the Registrant was unable to provide a coherent description of the research, and he admitted that it was outside his area of professional expertise as a Radiographer.
18. The report also noted that the Registrant could not say why a Physician Associate was involved in STI screening tool research. The Registrant was repeatedly asked if Person A would have known he was not working for the University, but the Registrant was said to have been unclear and was unable to state whether this was clarified to Person A. He did say he had not promised a scholarship. It was noted, however, that he had worn a University badge/lanyard in a photo he sent to Person A and Person A clearly knew he worked for the University since that is where she sent her complaint. Person A said she was offered a scholarship by the Registrant.
19. With reference to the methodology, the Registrant said the screening tool was to be tested in the community, and they needed women to distribute the tool into the community settings and also to act as ‘control’ participants. To be a ‘control’ required the young women to have unprotected sex with the Registrant and for the ‘test strip’ to be inserted into their vagina post-intercourse. The median test result from the three women was to be used as a control calculation for the field tests. The Registrant said he paid a family friend who worked at the Military Barracks in Accra, Ghana, to rent a room on the barracks for the purpose of his having intercourse with the women.
20. During the disciplinary hearing, the Registrant acknowledged that money had been promised to the three women and stated he was expecting payment from his friend, the Physician Associate. When the money did not arrive, the Registrant stated that the offer changed and that the women who were qualified were offered ‘scholarship packages’ and the woman who did not have the requisite qualifications was offered money. The Registrant said that a ‘scholarship package’ in Ghana does not mean the same thing as in the UK and that it is more about influence. His friend, the Physicians Associate was the person who had influence with government sources to help expedite government level scholarship support for individuals.
21. During the disciplinary hearing, the Registrant acknowledged that no money had been paid to the women. He also said that no community testing had taken place because by that time his friend was not responding to him. He said that his friend had reneged on his part of the research funding.
22. In light of its findings the Deputy Dean summarily dismissed the Registrant from his job at the University.
23. In an email to the HCPC dated 4 May 2023, the Registrant indicated that he was not appealing the decision made by the University. He also stated that he was not currently employed and did not intend to be until “the fitness to practice is decided.” He added that the Home Office had been notified regarding his visa, since the University is his sponsor. He concluded by saying, “Whatever happens I will avail myself to the proceedings even if I am deported to my home country.”
24. In advance of the Substantive Hearing, there was a preliminary application by the HCPC for special measures for Person A, on the ground that she was a vulnerable individual. The application was granted on 4 July 2024.
25. At the outset of the Hearing, Mr Walker, on behalf of the HCPC provided an update to the Panel in relation to Person A, and the difficulties surrounding her oral evidence.
26. Person A is a Ghanian national who resided in Ghana until November 2023. In March 2024, the HCPC contacted the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (“FCDO”) to obtain permission for Person A to give evidence from abroad. These steps were taken in accordance with the guidance on “Giving evidence from abroad”, namely that permission must be obtained before evidence is taken from a witness who is overseas.
27. The HCPC proceeded to obtain permission on the basis that Person A was based in Ghana and the relevant permissions were sought from the FCDO. However, in July 2024, the FCDO provided an update advising that as Ghana is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, an application should be made to the High Court.
28. The HCPC intended to make the required application. However, Person A subsequently contacted the HCPC to advise that was no longer residing in Ghana and that she is currently residing and working in Saudi Arabia. Mr Walker spoke to Person A prior to the Hearing commencing, and she confirmed that she was contracted to work in Saudi Arabia for 12 months from November 2023.
29. Mr Walker confirmed that as a result of this recent information, the HCPC had not been in a position to take any steps to seek the relevant permission to enable Person A to give evidence from Saudi Arabia. On that basis, Mr Walker confirmed that he did not propose calling Person A to give her oral evidence at this stage of the Hearing.
30. Mr Walker advised the Panel that the two other witnesses were available to give evidence and proposed dealing with the witnesses out of turn, with a view to progressing the hearing.
31. The Panel indicated that it was content to proceed as proposed, on the basis that the other witnesses would be available to be recalled following Person A’s evidence.
32. The Panel heard from the two other witnesses on behalf of the HCPC, namely Doctor Sharples and Professor Halliwell.
Witness 1: Doctor Sharples
33. The Panel heard from Doctor Sharples, Associate Dean for Academic Development and International at the University who confirmed her witness statement dated 18 October 2023 was true to the best of her knowledge and belief. Doctor Sharples adopted her witness statement, with the accompanying exhibits as her evidence.
34. Doctor Sharples was involved in the internal investigation. Mr Walker referred Doctor Sharples to paragraph 27 of her witness statement which noted the Registrant’s account of why the research had been conducted. She told the Panel that she believed that the research was unethical and illegal. She stated that within a research project, the control group would never be the researchers and that she had never encountered a research project of this nature.
35. Doctor Sharples told the Panel that she has experience working with other researchers in Ghana and the practices which they adopt are similar to the UK. She stated that they have similar degree programmes and that the research conducted by the Registrant would not be accepted in Ghana.
36. Doctor Sharples stated that the research conducted by the Registrant was irrational and immoral. She stated that it was irrational as research should not put anyone at risk, either the participant or the researcher. She explained that legitimate research would involve written information in relation to participant involvement. She also stated there was no rigour around the design and the design was implausible.
37. Doctor Sharples told the Panel that the research was immoral, as research would not involve women being subjected to sexual intercourse under the guise of a financial incentive and a scholarship. She stated that she did not believe that when she put this to the Registrant during the disciplinary hearing that he had any grasp of the immoral aspect of the research. She believed that the Registrant was more concerned about bringing the University into disrepute. Doctor Sharples stated that there was no remorse shown by the Registrant for the women involved.
38. In response to panel questions, Doctor Sharples confirmed that there are no cultural differences in Ghana in relation to how research perspectives are outlined. She stated that there are many Scientists in Ghana who carry out control trials and there is no difference in their approach to those in the UK.
39. In response to further questioning, Doctor Sharples told the Panel that the individual referred to, who allegedly assisted the Registrant with the research, is on the Register in Ghana as a Physicians Associate as she had looked him up. She stated that she did this to ascertain if the Registrant had fabricated his details.
40. Doctor Sharples also indicated that she understood that the Registrant was not involved in research at the University or in any other capacity.
Witness 2: Professor Halliwell
41. The Panel also heard from Professor Halliwell, Deputy Dean at the University who confirmed her witness statement dated 29 September 2023 was true to the best of her knowledge and belief. Professor Halliwell adopted her witness statement, with the accompanying exhibits as her evidence and confirmed that the contents were an accurate record.
42. Professor Halliwell was involved in the internal investigation. Mr Walker referred Professor Halliwell to paragraph 30-32 of her witness statement which noted the Registrant’s account. She confirmed that during the disciplinary hearing, the Registrant did not dispute that he had sexual intercourse with 3 women under the auspices of research.
43. Professor Halliwell stated that the Registrant was unable to confirm who the research was completed on behalf of, other than the individual named. She stated that he confirmed during the disciplinary hearing that he had not obtained any consent forms, he had not obtained ethical approval, that there was no branding on the kits and that the Registrant did not know where the samples were being taken to.
44. She advised that she queried during the interview if the Registrant understood how he would obtain ethical approval for a research project. She stated that he confirmed that through his training and education he did understand this process.
45. Professor Halliwell stated that she did not believe that the research carried out by the Registrant was legitimate, as a result of the harm caused to the participants. She further stated that she has never encountered similar research projects of this nature which involve physical contact and sexual intercourse. She confirmed that a researcher needs to have evidence of ethical approval with written consent from the participants.
46. Professor Halliwell told the Panel that she was concerned that the Registrant displayed little insight or any concern that harm had been caused. She stated that he showed very little insight into professional standards or conduct. She indicated that the Registrant stated that his conduct was financially motivated.
47. Professor Halliwell stated that the Registrant did provide insight in relation to the impact on wife and family, who she does not think were aware of what was happening. She stated that his main concern was to say that he had not brought the university into disrepute.
48. In response to panel questions, Professor Halliwell stated she believed that the Resistant was using the University to give credibility to his research. She stated that the Registrant confirmed during the disciplinary hearing that he wished to complete his PhD and continue working as an academic Radiographer. In the alternative he indicated he would obtain a student visa to continue his studies. She advised that the Registrant did state that they needed Radiographers in Ghana, so she felt that he intended to go back to Ghana when he has completed his studies.
49. In response to a point of clarification from the Panel, Professor Halliwell confirmed that the Registrant would not have been in a position to offer a bargaining script or scholarship to participants.
RESUMED HEARING: 29 OCTOBER 2024
Service
50. The Hearing adjourned part heard on 31 July 2024 and resumed on 29 October 2024. The Panel re-visited the issue of service and noted that the new Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant at his registered email address with the HCPC on 19 August 2024. The HCPC received notification on 19 August 2024 that “delivery” of the email was “complete”. The Panel was satisfied that proper and reasonable notice of the resumed hearing had been served on the Registrant.
Proceeding in absence
51. At the resumed hearing, the Panel considered an application by the HCPC inviting the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
52. The Panel was aware that the discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the utmost care and caution. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled "Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant" and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
53. The new Notice of Hearing dated 19 August 2024 gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend remotely and engage in the Hearing. However, the Panel noted that there had been no response from the Registrant in relation to the Notice of Hearing.
54. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily chosen to absent himself. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
Taking evidence from abroad
55. The Hearing adjourned part heard on 31 July 2024 as the HCPC had not been in a position to take any steps to seek the relevant permission to enable Person A to give evidence from Saudi Arabia.
56. Since this time, the HCPTS has been in discussion with the Foreign, Commonwealth and development Office (FCDO) to clarify whether the requirement to obtain permission from the relevant foreign state to allow a witness or registrant to give evidence from abroad, as set out in Agbabiaka, applies to the HCPC. The HCPC has also sought advice from Leading Counsel on this matter.
57. The FCDO has confirmed that HCPC Tribunals are not required to follow the Agbabiaka process. Therefore, permission was not required to enable Person A to give evidence remotely from Saudi Arabia. The Panel were provided with an updated briefing note dated October 2024 which provides such guidance.
Application for hearing in private
58. The Panel noted that there may be reference to Person A’s health. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor's advice and took into consideration the HCPTS' Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private.
59. The Panel referred to pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) 2003 Rules, which provides that:
"The proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing".
60. The Panel was mindful that during the course of the hearing there will be reference to Person A’s health. The Panel therefore determined that where such references are made, these parts of the hearing should be held in private, to preserve Person A’s right to privacy and confidentiality.
Witness 3: Person A
61. The Panel also heard from Person A who confirmed her witness statement dated 21 August 2023 was true to the best of her knowledge and belief. Person A adopted her witness statement, with the accompanying exhibits as her evidence and confirmed that the contents were true and accurate.
62. Person A stated that when she initially reported the incident, there wasn’t any prompt action and she felt nothing would be done. Therefore, she has let go of the thinking aspect and learnt to forget about it and move on with her life.
63. During panel clarification questions, Person A was asked when she initially made the complaint to the University of Salford, did she believe the University was due to pay her £800.00. Person A told the Panel that she did not believe the University owed her money, however because the Registrant stated that he had worked for the University and she believed this to be incorrect, she took steps to make a complaint to the University.
Submissions for the HCPC
64. The Presenting Officer, Mr Walker submitted that the Panel should find all particulars proved. He referred the Panel to the supporting evidence provided by each witness and the evidence relating to each particular.
65. He submitted that the evidence in this case is very strong given the array of direct evidence and admissions both documentary and reported by other witnesses.
66. He submitted that there is overwhelming and convincing evidence that prove the allegations. He submitted that the Panel had heard directly from Person A who confirmed her statement was accurate and when she was asked about the impact, she gave a very candid account of what had happened to her. Mr Walker invited the Panel to find her evidence credible.
67. He reminded the Panel that Person A initially made a complaint to University which was cogent and consistent with her evidence. said complaint was processed by the University. Mr Walker submitted that the allegations were subsequently put to the Registrant in an internal investigation, and he admitted the essence of the allegations.
68. Mr Walker submitted that the Registrant admitted in the disciplinary hearing that he had had unprotected sex with Person A under the auspices of research in return for promised money and an academic scholarship
69. He submitted that the Registrant’s account was manifestly bogus as no such research could ever have been legitimately undertaken and this should have been obvious to any professional radiographer.
70. Mr Walker submitted that no evidence of the research project was ever provided and the Registrant had every opportunity to do this if it existed. Given the fictitious account given by the Registrant, his actions were clearly a coercive action to induce Person A to have sex with him. He submitted that the inducement was false and therefore there was no informed consent to the sex, hence the actions were coercive.
71. In relation to Particular 2, Mr Walker submitted that this was obviously sexually motivated as there was no other discernible motivation.
Legal Advice
72. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to assess all the evidence on the balance of probabilities, the onus of proof resting upon the HCPC. It should consider all the oral and documentary evidence and be mindful of the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note, “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.
73. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the relevant authorities, namely Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) and Harris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763 regarding findings of sexual motivation.
Decision on Facts
Particular 1 – Found Proved
74. In reaching this decision, the Panel considered all the oral and documentary evidence. The Panel considered Person A’s witness statement and her oral evidence and noted that Person A has been consistent in her account of what took place and that she was clear in her evidence.
75. Person A notes in her witness statement that she had unprotected sex with the Registrant, and that this was done under the auspices of research with promise of an exchange of money. She states that she was coerced by the Registrant and promised £800 and a scholarship to the University, in payment for her participation in the research. The Panel noted that this was promised in the absence of any agreement from the University and that this was something that could never be delivered.
76. The Panel had regard to the oral evidence of Professor Halliwell where she confirmed that during the internal disciplinary hearing, the Registrant did not dispute that he had sexual intercourse with 3 women under the auspices of research. The Panel considered the evidence from Doctor Sharples and Professor Halliwell, two credible witnesses, that this could not have been done under the auspices of a research project
77. Professor Halliwell stated that the Registrant confirmed during the disciplinary hearing that he had not obtained any consent forms from Person A, he had not obtained ethical approval, that there was no branding on the kits and that he did not know where the samples were being taken to.
78. In her evidence, Doctor Sharples stated that she would have expected the Registrant to understand what was required from a research project. He was a professional man with a PhD who had worked at the University for some time and he would have had enough knowledge to know that this research would not meet university criteria.
79. The Panel also noted that in their evidence Doctor Sharples and Professor Halliwell told the Panel that the Registrant indicated that he had never told his wife about the alleged research.
80. The Panel contemplated potential cultural differences and considered Doctor Sharples evidence that that there are no cultural differences in Ghana in relation to how research perspectives are outlined. Doctor Sharples stated that there are many Scientists in Ghana who carry out control trials and there is no difference in their approach to those in the UK.
81. In all the circumstances, the Panel found particular 1 proved.
Particular 2 – Proved
82. In reaching this decision, the Panel considered all the oral and documentary evidence. The Panel also had regard to the relevant guidance, practice note and case law surrounding sexual motivation allegations.
83. The Panel initially had regard to the tone and nature of the messages which were sent from the Registrant to Person A. The Panel noted that the messages were initially sent via LinkedIn, however the Registrant sent subsequent messages via WhatsApp to Person A, which is a more informal forum.
84. The Panel agreed that there was no clinical justification for the conduct found proved in relation to Particular 1. The Panel determined that as the conduct was overtly sexual in nature, there was no plausible or innocent explanation for the conduct.
85. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particular 1 was sexually motivated and the conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification.
86. On this basis the Panel found particular 2 proved.
Decision on Grounds
87. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct, as alleged in particular 3 of the Allegation.
88. The Panel carefully considered all of the oral and documentary evidence. The Panel took account of the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
89. The Panel was mindful that this was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.
90. The Panel took into account that misconduct was defined in Roylance v
General Medical Council (no 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 as:
“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls
short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of
propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards
ordinarily required to be followed by a (medical) practitioner in the
particular circumstances”.
91. When considering the issue of seriousness, the Panel took account of the case of Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) where it was held that:
“the adjective “serious” must be given its proper weight, and in other contexts there has been reference to conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.”
92. The Panel took into account that the matters which have been found proved are extremely serious. These were deliberate actions, with a high degree of planning and the Registrant took significant steps to dress up his conduct. The Panel was in no doubt that the behaviour would be regarded as deplorable and unprofessional by fellow practitioners.
93. The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016). It found that the Registrant breached Standards 2.7, 9.1 and 9.3:-
Social media and networking websites
2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and
responsibly, including social media and networking websites.
Personal and professional behaviour
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust
and confidence in you and your profession.
Personal and professional behaviour
9.2 You must be honest about your experience, qualifications
and skills.
94. The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of Proficiency (2013). It found that the Registrant breached Standards 2, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3, and 3.1:-
2. Be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession.
2.7 Understand the importance of and be able to obtain informed
Consent
2.8 Be able to exercise a professional duty of care
2.9 understand the legislative, policy, ethical and research frameworks
that underpin, inform and influence the practice of radiography
3 be able to maintain fitness to practise
3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and
professional conduct
95. The Panel are of the view that this is a case of the utmost severity, involving conduct which could have amounted to serious criminal offences if they took place in the UK. The Panel agreed with the submissions made on behalf of the HCPC that the conduct would be regarded as a fundamental breach of the HCPC standards. The Panel determined that the conduct amounted to a serious breach of ethical and moral behaviour which would offend criminal codes in other jurisdictions.
96. The Panel concluded that it was conduct that fell seriously short of the standards to be expected of the Registrant in the circumstances and thereby constituted serious misconduct.
Decision on Impairment
97. The Panel next considered the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise. The Panel gave careful consideration to the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the advice of the Legal Assessor.
98. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and to the authoritative guidance in CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) and Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin).
99. The Panel noted that 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 looked to past conduct and to the future in assessing the risk of repetition. The Panel kept 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.
100. The Panel determined that all of the limbs of the Grant test were engaged:
Do our findings of fact, in respect of the Registrant’s misconduct show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that:
(a) the Registrant 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.
(b) the Registrant in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.
(c) the Registrant in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
101. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice, 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 on the part of registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.
102. In respect of the personal component and the nature of the misconduct, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s misconduct was extremely serious. The Panel had regard to the fact that the Registrant had taken steps to provide a bogus account during the University’s internal investigation in relation to the research project. He subsequently did not engage with the HCPC in the regulatory proceedings and did not attend or engage in this Hearing. There has never been any recognition by the Registrant that this was not genuine research.
103. The Panel determined that the Registrant has demonstrated no insight, no remorse or any regret for his actions. The Panel were of the view that the Registrant’s behaviour raised serious attitudinal issues in terms of his lack of honesty and integrity. The Panel concluded that there was no evidence of remediation from the Registrant.
104. The Panel had regard to the evidence of Witness 1 and Witness 2 who both commented on the harm caused to Person A. Further, the Panel noted that the Registrant does not appear to appreciate the significance of the impact that his behaviour had on the victim and on the reputation of the University.
105. The Panel found taking the circumstances of these events as a whole, that there was a significant risk of repetition. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.
106. The panel next considered the important public interest considerations, that is the public component of fitness to practise. It was mindful of the advice in the Grant case which states :-
“71...it is essential, when deciding whether fitness to practise is impaired, not to lose sight of the fundamental considerations ….. namely the need to protect the public and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession…In determining whether a practitioner's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.”
107. In Grant the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) is referred to and approved. This states:-
“[62] Any approach to the issue of whether a doctor’s fitness to practise
should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence [in the] profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour of the public in their doctors and that public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence…”
108. The Panel was mindful of its findings, that the Registrant coerced Person A into having unprotected sex under the auspices of research, with the promise of an exchange or money and/or an academic scholarship. The Panel noted the evidence of Witness 1 who told the Panel that she believed that the research was unethical and illegal. She stated that within a research project, the control group would never be the researchers and that she had never encountered a research project of this nature.
109. The Panel determined that their findings are very serious, that the Registrant’s conduct was wholly unacceptable and selfishly placed putting his own interests over the needs of a vulnerable individual. The Panel determined such a finding of serious misconduct has an adverse impact on the public and on public confidence in both the regulator and the profession.
110. The Panel concluded, with the guidance in Grant in mind, that in the circumstances of this case given the grave nature of the misconduct, that not to make a finding of current impairment would undermine public confidence in the profession, and in the regulator. It would also fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards.
111. The Panel accordingly found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired on the public and personal components.
Decision on Sanction
112. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC in relation to options available to the Panel in terms of sanction. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Walker made submissions concerning the proper approach to the sanction consideration and invited the Panel to have regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. He outlined the aggravated and mitigating factors relevant to the case.
113. The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor on the proper approach to the imposition of a sanction. Accordingly, the Panel accepted a sanction is not to be imposed to punish, but rather should be the least restrictive outcome consistent with the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper professional standards and to maintain public confidence in the Radiography profession and its regulatory body. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the relevant authorities to include the case of Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 W.L.R. 512.
114. The Legal Assessor also drew the Panel’s attention to the guidance in relation to Sanctions for serious cases, to include cases surrounding sexual misconduct.
115. The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s previous unblemished career, however it could not identify any mitigating factors in this case.
116. The Panel identified what it considered to be the principle aggravating factors in this case, which are as follows:-
• Serious nature of the Allegation which involved sexual misconduct and sexually motivated conduct towards a vulnerable individual
• Coercion
• Predatory Behaviour
• Direct harm caused to the victim
• Abuse of professional position
• Breach of Trust, whilst the victim wasn’t a service user, she engaged with the Registrant under the auspices of research
• Lack of insight and understanding of the damage caused to the victim or to the reputation of the University
• No evidence of remorse or regret
• Lack of openness and honesty with employer and family
117. The Panel was required first to consider whether the finding that the misconduct allegation is well founded requires the imposition of any sanction. If the answer to that question is that a sanction is required, then the available sanctions should be considered in an ascending order of seriousness. The Panel confirms that it has approached the decision in that manner and has fully considered the terms of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy, to include sanctions in serious cases involving sexual misconduct.
118. The Panel had regard to the relevant authorities and took account of the legal advice, that cases have to be considered on their merits, and the Panel must engage fully with the range of responses available before imposing the ultimate sanction.
119. 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.
120. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel decided that sexual misconduct including sexual motivation is too serious to be dealt with by way of taking no action. There is a risk of repetition and a risk of both physical and emotional harm to others if the Registrant’s behaviour is repeated. Taking no action would also fail to send the appropriate message to the profession and to the public that the conduct is wholly unacceptable. Taking no action would also fail to protect the public.
121. It then considered the imposition of a Caution Order but again determined that, due to the seriousness of the facts found proved in this case, and the public protection issues identified, an order that does not restrict the Registrant’s practice would not be appropriate in the circumstances. The risk of future harm which would be too great. The panel considered the Sanctions policy and the guidance in relation to Caution Orders and noted that it is the least restrictive option. The Panel determined that a Caution order would be inappropriate in view of the seriousness of the case. The panel decided that it would be neither proportionate nor in the public interest to impose a Caution Order.
122. The Panel noted that the Registrants clinical or academic capabilities are not in dispute and that the misconduct occurred outside the work place. The Panel had regard to the attitudinal issues raised in the case and noted that it is difficult to put conditions in place in such circumstances. The Panel considered that the misconduct occurred outside the Registrant’s clinical or academic practice and also outside of this jurisdiction. The Panel determined that it would be difficult to formulate conditions to address the future risk. Furthermore, the Registrant has failed to engage with the HCPC throughout the proceedings. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that he would engage with conditions in any meaningful way.
123. The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The Panel are of the view that the issues are more attitudinal in nature and are of such gravity that a Conditions of Practice Order would not address the wider public interest concerns.
124. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order and determined that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate or proportionate in the particular circumstances of this case. The Panel considered the Sanctions Policy and noted that the criteria for a Suspension Order would not apply in this case, on that basis that the Registrant has demonstrated no insight and there is a significant risk of repetition. Furthermore, the Registrant has not engaged in the proceedings and there is no evidence of remediation, or any steps taken by the Registrant to address the serious misconduct.
125. The Panel therefore concluded that a period of suspension was not adequate to fully protect the public and to maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the profession.
126. The Panel considered the Sanctions Policy in relation to Striking Off Orders and does consider the facts of this case, due to their very serious nature which includes sexual misconduct, to justify such an order. The Panel wished to send a clear message to the Registrant and other members of the profession that such conduct is entirely unacceptable.
127. The Panel concluded that the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.
128. The Panel decided that in all of the circumstances, the proportionate and appropriate sanction was to make a Striking Off Order under Article 29(5) of the Health Professions Order.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Derrick Denteh Kofi from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.
Notes
Interim Order
1. 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 the Registrant’s interest until the sanction takes effect. The panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
Submissions on interim order
2. The Panel took account of the submissions made by Mr Walker. He submitted that an interim order was necessary to address the risk to public and to uphold the confidence in profession. He informed the Panel that the sanction which it has imposed would not take effect for 28 days. He submitted that an 18 month interim order would address the risks identified by the Panel and cover any potential period of appeal.
Decision and reasons on interim order
3. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the advice given by 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. This order will expire (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Derrick Denteh Kofi
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
29/10/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |
29/07/2024 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |