Sarath M Kanhirathinkal Chandramohan

Background

1. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer. On 1 February 2023 he accepted a Simple Caution for the offence of:

• Stalking without fear/alarm/distress.

2. The Simple Caution relates to the Registrant stalking a former partner (Person A) by telephoning her, messaging her, sending her unwanted gifts, and sitting outside her address.

3. The Police investigated the matter and spoke to Person A who was unwilling to provide a statement to the Police.

4. On 17 November 2022, the Police attended the Registrant’s home address, but he was not present. Later that day, the Registrant presented himself to the Police station and was arrested and his mobile phone was seized. The Registrant was interviewed under caution and admitted the alleged behaviour, stating that Person A had not told him the relationship was over. However, he then accepted that it was over and was sorry for what he had done. The Registrant was not previously known to the Police. The Registrant was released on Police bail prohibiting him from contacting Person A.

5. On 22 January 2023, Person A emailed the Police to say that she still did not wish to provide a statement, and that the Registrant had not contacted her since.

6. On 1 February 2023, the Registrant attended the Police station in accordance with his terms of bail. He was informed that the Police were willing to offer him a Simple Caution. The Registrant accepted the Simple Caution.

7. The Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC in May 2023.

8. The HCPC conducted investigations and sought details from the Registrant’s employers. On 6 December 2023, a recruiter firm confirmed that the Registrant started working as a locum with them on 13 June 2023. They confirmed that as part of the onboarding checks, the Registrant was open and honest with regards to his Simple Caution. The reference notes that they have found the Registrant to be:

‘…open and honest since he started, caring about his patients, polite, and maintains professional relationships with colleagues. We found him to be credible, skilled, and we have no concern about him being open and honest, or his fitness to practice.’

9. On 21 May 2024, a panel of the HCPC Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer in relation to the Allegation against the Registrant.

10. The Registrant has provided a reflective statement (undated) to the HCPC, outlining the circumstances that led to the Simple Caution and the reason for the delay in referring himself to the HCPC.

11. On 21 July 2024, the Registrant completed a consensual disposal request pro-forma. Within this, he admitted the Allegation and admitted that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of Caution and Misconduct. He confirmed that he had read the relevant HCPTS Practice Note and that he would like a consensual disposal.

12. The Registrant has not been and is not currently subject to an Interim Order.

Submissions

HCPC

13. Miss Givern gave oral submissions reflecting the contents of her skeleton argument, which the Panel had received in advance of the hearing. The skeleton argument dated 26 March 2025 states:

‘1. The HCPC and the Registrant (the parties) propose that this case should be disposed of by consent, by way of a consent order for 12 months. They submit that this case is suitable for disposal by way of consent because:

a. The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation and that his fitness to practise is impaired;

b. The Registrant has demonstrated insight; and

c. The proposed sanction adequately protects the public and upholds the public interest.

2. The HCPC and the Registrant recognise that participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to the approval of the proposed sanction, and that it is a matter for the Panel to consider.
…

7. On 21 July 2024, the Registrant completed a Consensual Disposal Request Pro-Forma in which he confirms that he admits the allegation as set out in the Notice of Allegation and that his fitness to practise is currently impaired. He confirms that he would like the matter to be dealt with by way of Consensual Disposal.

8. The HCPC submits that this matter is suitable for disposal by way of consensual disposal because:

a. The Registrant admits the substance of the allegation. He has signed a consensual disposal request pro forma which sets out the allegations and confirmed that he admits the substance of that allegation and that his fitness to practise is impaired as a result of that caution and misconduct.

b. The Panel is referred to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy which confirms that a caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:

• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;

• there is a low risk of repetition;

• the registrant has shown good insight; and

• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

c. The Sanctions Policy further states that

“A caution order should be considered in cases where the nature of the allegations mean that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a suspension of practice order would be disproportionate. In these cases, panels should provide a clear explanation of why it has chosen a non-restrictive sanction, even though the panel may have found there to be a risk of repetition (albeit low).”

d. The proposed sanction of a caution order adequately protects the public. There is no suggestion that the Registrant presented a risk to patients, and he has provided information as to the circumstances that led to his caution. The Registrant has worked through agencies, who have confirmed they have no concerns about the Registrant. It is submitted that the concerns in this case are limited in nature and there is a low risk of repetition. Further, it is submitted that the Registrant has shown good insight throughout the process
and the Panel are referred to his reflective statement.

e. The proposed sanction of a caution order also satisfies the wider public interest. It is submitted that a fully informed member of the public would not be concerned if a Registrant with a simple caution for an offence relating to their personal life, and a failure to disclose this in good time, were to be made subject to a caution order. A caution order marks the seriousness of the allegation, whilst allowing the Registrant to continue practising. In these circumstances, the public interest in maintaining public confidence in the
professions and promoting proper professional standards is best addressed by imposing the agreed caution order for a period of 12 months.

9. The Panel is invited to approve the draft consent order and direct that a caution order is imposed on the Registrant’s entry on the register for a period of 12 months.’

The Registrant

14. Mr Pembridge submitted that the Panel should allow the case to be resolved in accordance with the draft consent order, which would result in the Registrant receiving a HCPC Caution Order on his registration for 12 months.

Decision of the Panel

15. The application before the Panel is made by both parties. It seeks disposal of the case by consent. A main hearing bundle of documents was provided to the Panel as well as a skeleton argument and draft consent order. The main hearing bundle contained numerous documents including details of the Police investigation, a copy of the Simple Caution, the Registrant’s self-referral and the Registrant’s reflective statement.

16. The Panel took into account all the material before it and the submissions made by both parties.

17. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

18. In its consideration of the application, the Panel was guided by the matters set out in the HCPTS' Practice Note, Disposal of Cases by Consent, March 2018. It noted that as the HCPC's overarching statutory objective is the protection of the public, it should not agree to a case being resolved by consent unless it is satisfied that:

(i) The appropriate level of public protection is being secured; and

(ii) doing so would not be detrimental to the wider public interest.

19. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC has provided a clear, appropriately detailed, and objectively justified explanation within
its supporting skeleton argument of why the matter is suitable for disposal by consent on the terms set out in the draft Consent Order.

20. The Panel was also satisfied that it has been made clear to the Registrant that co-operation and participation in the consent process will not automatically lead to a Consent Order being approved.

21. In the document titled 'Consensual Disposal Request Pro Forma' signed by the Registrant on 21 July 2024, the Registrant expressly admitted the substance of the Allegation, admitted that his fitness to practise was impaired on grounds of Caution and Misconduct, and proposed a consensual disposal of the case.

22. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has demonstrated insight and remediation. The conduct that he admits was limited and has not been repeated. No other concerns have been raised about him, his professional practice, or his adherence to the HCPC Standards.

23. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. It noted that a Caution Order is likely to be appropriate for cases which:

• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;

• there is a low risk of repetition;

• the Registrant has shown good insight; and

• the Registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

24. It further noted that, as per the Sanctions Policy, a … ‘panel should take the minimum action required to protect the public and public confidence in the profession, so should begin by considering whether or not a caution order of one year would be sufficient to achieve this…’

25. Taking all of the above into account, the Panel concluded that the appropriate level of public protection would be secured with the imposition of a one-year Caution Order. Given the circumstances of the case, the Panel further concluded that imposing a one-year Caution Order would not be detrimental to the wider public interest. The Panel considered that if the case did procced to a final hearing, a Caution Order is a realistic and likely outcome in light of the circumstances. A higher level of sanction would be likely to be disproportionate.

26. The Panel was satisfied that all the circumstances required by the Practice Note on the ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’ have been met so as to merit disposal of the case as proposed by the HCPC and the Registrant.

27. Therefore, the Panel decided to dispose of the case on this expedited basis and to approve the terms of the draft Consent Order, which is attached for ease of reference.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the HCPC Register entry of Sarath M Kanhirathinkal Chandramohan with a caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of twelve months from the date this order comes into effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Sarath M Kanhirathinkal Chandramohan