Simon Bettles

Preliminary Matters
Service

1. The Panel was satisfied on the papers that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of this hearing by email dated 28 February 2025 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended. Delivery of that notice was confirmed by email of the same date.

Proceeding in absence

2. Mr Brady made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence on the grounds that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. By email dated 31 March 2025, the Registrant’s solicitor notified the HCPC the Registrant would not be present or represented at this hearing. By email dated 23 April 2025, the Registrant confirmed to the HCPC that he would not be attending the hearing or be represented. The Registrant provided the Panel with a statement dated 28 March 2025 in which he set out his response to the Allegations. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and waived his right to attend. The Panel considered that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment as the Registrant was unlikely to attend at any future date. In the circumstances, it was in the public interest, and not unfair to the Registrant, for the hearing to proceed in his absence.

Hearing in private

4. Mr Brady made an application for any matters relating to Student A’s private life to be heard in private.

5. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel granted the application on the grounds advanced by Mr Brady.

Application to amend

6. Mr Brady made an application to amend Particular 1d by deleting the words “whilst your child was asleep next to you” on the grounds that, with the exception of these words, the Registrant admitted Particular 1d and that the words to which the Registrant objected added nothing of substance to Particular 1d.

7. The Panel granted the application to amend on the grounds advanced by Mr Brady.

Background

8. The Registrant commenced employment at the University of Surrey (“the University”) on 25 September 2008, in the role of Associate Tutor. He was promoted to the role of Senior Teaching Fellow on 1 August 2018. On 1 August 2022, his job title changed to Senior Lecturer. Whilst working at the University the Registrant was based in the School of Health Sciences, located in the Kate Granger Building at Surrey Research Park.

9. Student A was a third-year student at the University undertaking a healthcare course. She also volunteered in response to an email from the Registrant to be a student helper to assist with teaching the PM1 module to first year students. As part of that role, she and other student helpers communicated via a WhatsApp group chat. The WhatsApp group chat also included two lecturers, one of whom was the Registrant.

10. The University has an online system entitled Report + Support, which can be used to report allegations broadly falling into the categories of abuse, bullying, harassment, hate crime and sexual misconduct. Users can choose to report alleged incidents anonymously, or with contact details.

11. An anonymous submission was made to the University via Report + Support on 6 June 2022, which alleged that the Registrant and Student A were engaged in a sexual relationship.

12. The Registrant’s line manager discussed the Report with the Registrant, and he denied all aspects of the allegations made in the Report. The line manager spoke separately to Student A regarding the Report who also denied all aspects of the allegations. The Report was closed with an outcome of “no further action”.

13. A further anonymous Report + Support submission concerning the Registrant was received on 23 September 2022, alleging that he had “coerced, groomed and sexually assaulted health care students using his company WhatsApp account”. No action was taken with respect to this Report and the case was closed on 25 September 2022. The University states that this decision was taken as receipt of the report coincided with a number of unrelated malicious/vexatious reports (about several members of staff) made to various bodies by a former paramedic student. It was assumed at the time that this individual was the author of the Report, and that the report was malicious/vexatious.

14. On 7 October 2022, Student A told her Personal Tutor that there had been an inappropriate relationship between the Registrant and her, which included sexual interactions. Student A stated that she had reciprocated in conversation with the Registrant through instant messenger services, social media and in person. Student A stated that she never consented to any of the sexual interactions, and that she stated this to the Registrant a number of months into the interactions. Student A referred to the sexual interactions as “unwanted, grooming and sexual assault.” Student A said that the alleged interactions took place between November 2021 and October 2022.

15. On 7 October 2022, the Registrant was informed that allegations had been made against him and he was suspended with immediate effect. The University investigated the allegations made by Student A. The investigation was conducted by a case manager in the Office of Student Complaints, Appeals and Regulation at the University. As part of the investigation, the Registrant was interviewed, and he accepted that he and Student A had a personal relationship which included the exchange of sexual messages. However, he denied any form of physical sexual activity with Student A. The Registrant informed the investigation that he was not aware that the nature of his relationship with Student A was notifiable to the University in accordance with policy and procedure, which is why he did not report it to his line manager when challenged about it in June 2022.

16. On 12 October 2022, Professor MC, Head of the School of Health Sciences and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, referred the Registrant to the HCPC.

17. The Investigation Officer completed her investigation report dated 1 December 2022, and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that there was sufficient evidence for the allegations to be considered by the University Disciplinary Panel.

18. The University held a Disciplinary Panel meeting on 11 January 2023 which the Registrant attended with a Trade Union Representative. On 18 January 2023, the University terminated the Registrant’s employment on the grounds of gross misconduct.

19. The Registrant appealed the decision and a Disciplinary Appeal Hearing was held by the University on 21 February 2023. The Disciplinary Appeal Panel did not uphold the Registrant’s appeal.

The hearing

20. The Panel was provided with a hearing bundle which included the witness statements of the following:
• Student A and documents which she exhibited, including her text messages with the Registrant
• TM, a friend and fellow midwifery student of Student A, who gave evidence of her awareness of the relationship between the Registrant and Student A
• Professor MC, who gave evidence in her witness statement as to her initial interviews with the Registrant and Student A in June 2022, following an anonymous complaint about their relationship, at which both the Registrant and Student A denied any such relationship. Professor MC attended a meeting with the Registrant on 7 October 2022, when Student A disclosed the fact of her relationship with the Registrant and showed messages between her and the Registrant which confirmed their relationship and the previous cover-up. She confirmed that, following an interview with the Registrant on 7 October 2022, when he denied the allegations, he had been suspended with immediate effect
• VS was employed as a Midwifery Lecturer at the University and was Student A’s personal tutor from shortly before November 2022. She was the member of staff to whom Student A initially made her allegations against the Registrant on 7 October 2022. She supported Student A through two investigatory interviews on 13 and 20 October 2022 respectively
• AK was Case Manager in the Office of Student Complaints, Appeals and Regulation at the University. She carried out the investigation into the Registrant. She interviewed Student A on 13 and 20 October 2022 and the Registrant on 9 November 2022. She stated that the Registrant admitted “sexting” Student A but denied engaging in any sexual activity with her. She produced her investigation report dated 1 December 2022.

21. The Panel also received:
• the Registrant’s response, dated 4 March 2025 and completed by Solicitors on his behalf, to a Notice To Admit Facts dated 18 February 2025, served by Blake Morgan LLP on behalf of the HCPC
• the Registrant’s statement dated 28 March 2025.

22. The Panel heard oral evidence from Student A and TM. The statements of the other witnesses were admitted in evidence without the need for the witnesses to attend.

Decision on facts

23. At the outset of the hearing, the Panel announced that the following Particulars were proved on the basis of the Registrant’s admissions, namely: 1a, 1c, 1d and 1e, 2 (apart from 1b), 3, 4, 5 (apart from 1b) and 6. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Admissions” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s admissions were unambivalent and were in accordance with the evidence.
Particular 1b – Proved
Particulars 2 and 5 – Proved in relation to Particular 1(b)
The evidence in support of Particular 1b

24. Student A gave evidence that at the material time she was a third-year student at the University undertaking a midwifery course. She was employed part-time by the University as a student helper to assist with teaching the PM1 module to first year students. As part of her role, she and other student helpers communicated via a WhatsApp group chat. The WhatsApp group chat also included the student supervisors, one of whom was the Registrant.

25. The Registrant was in charge of the Simulation Suite where Student A worked on a part-time basis. He was in charge of the student helpers, including Student A. He was a senior figure in the university and, according to Student A, regarded as charismatic, well-connected and influential.

26. Student A’s initial contact with the Registrant was to inform him that she would be late for work. He invited her for a chat which led to her telling him about some problems she was experiencing at home. The Registrant followed up this meeting with WhatsApp messages over subsequent weeks, showing a friendly interest in her wellbeing, to which Student A was happy to respond.

27. In January 2022, WhatsApp messages between the Registrant, while he was on duty as an ODP in a hospital and Student A led to the Registrant initiating a “game” in which they asked each other questions. Student A's questions were quite basic, such as asking the Registrant his favourite restaurant; by contrast, his questions had a sexual theme, such as asking her about her favourite sex positions, at what age she lost her virginity and “full shave, a line or full bush”. Student A said that she answered his questions because he was a staff member, senior to her and she was worried about potentially negative consequences of not playing along.

28. On 26 January 2022, another member of staff complained to the Registrant about the clothes Student A and a fellow student were wearing at work, as not being in line with uniform policy. The Registrant told Student A not to worry and gave her a University Simulation hoodie to wear instead of a regulation cardigan. Student A took this as a gesture of friendship and support from the Registrant.

29. There followed a number of meetings, described below, between the Registrant and Student A, all of which took place in meeting rooms of the Kate Grainger Building of the University, behind closed doors and drawn blinds, in which the Registrant made sexual advances towards Student A, of which she was the unwilling recipient and to which she did not consent.

30. At a meeting on 28 January 2022, whilst Student A was showing the Registrant something on her laptop to do with her dissertation, he grabbed the chair between her legs, pulled her towards him and started to kiss her neck and play with her hair. She tried to pull away from him but he persisted for 2-3 minutes, kissing and biting her ears and neck, despite her saying “no”.

31. Following this incident, the Registrant sent Student A frequent WhatsApp messages, asking after her and eliciting personal information from her. During a period when she was unwell, he made her feel that he cared about her. He then started asking her to send him photographs of herself, which she agreed to do, and videos of her touching herself, which she refused. He sent her photographs of himself in the bath. He also sent her a photograph of his hands with the message “look how big my hands are, they’d look great around your neck”.

32. Student A said that she felt compromised by these communications and her previous encounter with the Registrant and that, if she did not go along with his requests, he could use his power and influence to get her taken off the degree course.

33. At a meeting on 9 February 2022, the Registrant started kissing Student A’s neck, tried to unbutton her uniform and touched her breasts over her uniform. She tried to avoid his caresses but found it difficult to resist his physical strength and pressure.

34. On 15 February 2022 the Registrant acted in a similar manner. At first, Student A resisted his kisses, but then kissed him back, because she thought he might get angry if she didn’t respond. He then got his hands under her leggings, trying to get his fingers inside her, despite her efforts to cross her legs.

35. On 15 March 2022, as Student A walked into a meeting room, the Registrant pushed her against the wall, held her hands tightly above her head with one of his hands and kissed her, whilst he used his other hand to feel all over her body. He kissed her neck and pulled her hair. She was upset but thought that, if he saw her cry, “something bad was going to happen”.

36. On 14 April 2022, the Registrant messaged Student A: “I’d make sure that I had kissed licked fucked and cum in every part of you. I would have you so wet it would run down your legs”.

37. On 17 April 2022, the Registrant sent Student A messages saying “I want to cum in and on you” and “I want to push you against a wall, fill you and take you up the arse”.

38. In a meeting room on 25 April 2022, the Registrant pushed Student A against the wall and put his hand around her neck to choke her in a sexual manner. When Student A told him that he had made her light- headed, he replied “that’s the whole point”. With his other hand, the Registrant slid inside her underwear and put his fingers inside her and made her orgasm.

39. Student A said that she hated herself for what had happened and broke up with her long-term boyfriend on 30 April 2022 as a result.

40. On 1 May 2022, Student A messaged the Registrant and told him that this had to stop, that he could see but not touch her. The Registrant admitted in a text message in reply that he had taken it too far and had done things he should probably not have done.

41. On 28 May 2022, Student A messaged the Registrant, saying that she missed his friendship and support. She subsequently met him on 7 June 2022 in a meeting room in the Kate Granger building. She made it clear to him that she wanted his support but did not want a sexual relationship with him. He nodded and said words to the effect of “I won’t come near you” and “I won’t touch you”.

42. Shortly after 7 June 2022, the Registrant contacted Student A to tell her that there had been an anonymous complaint that they were having a sexual relationship. He told her that, when questioned by MC, he had “played it well” saying that he was old enough to be Student A’s father and denied the allegations. He warned Student A that she too would be questioned and should deny everything.

43. On 9 June 2022, Student A was questioned by Professor MC over Microsoft Teams and denied having a relationship with the Registrant. Her friend, TM, was present but stayed out of sight of the camera and recorded the conversation. Student A sent the recording to the Registrant because she was scared that he would not believe that she had backed up his denial of their relationship. 

44. On 27 June 2022, the Registrant initiated a Facetime conversation with Student A, at which without warning he turned the camera to reveal that he was masturbating himself. He asked her to take her top off, which she did, because she was scared of what he might do if she refused.

45. On 6 July 2022, at a one-to-one meeting, the Registrant without warning exposed his penis to Student A.

46. On 20 July 2022, Student A asked to meet the Registrant because she was upset after a midwife had been rude to her. The Registrant appeared to listen to Student A but then pinned her against the wall, grabbed her wrists tightly and started kissing her. Student A tried to tell him to stop but was scared and could not get the words out. He pulled her underwear to one side and forced his fingers inside her. He got onto his knees and tried to perform oral sex on her, at which point she was able to push him away. When he got up, she tried to distract him from doing anything worse by kissing him. He penetrated her with his fingers. Student A said that she was too scared and frozen to tell him to stop.

47. Student A said that she was so distressed by this last incident that when it was over, she walked into the woods near the University and repeatedly punched a tree until her hand was bruised, cut and bleeding. She did this because she felt guilty and hated herself. The latest incident had opened her eyes to the nature of their relationship, and confirmed what her friends have been telling her, namely that she had been groomed and sexually assaulted by the Registrant.

48. Student A sent photographs of her injured hand to the Registrant, to which he responded “I feel sick. I’m going to have a panic attack”.

49. There were further sexual encounters between the Registrant and Student A, which fell outside the timeframe of 1b. These included 23 August 2022 and 23 September 2022, when Student A was working a night shift and the Registrant messaged her to say that he was thinking of her and gratuitously sent her a photograph of his penis. Student A made it clear to the Registrant that he had overstepped the mark and that she did not like it. He apologised to her and said it would not happen again.

50. On 27 September 2022, there were some further messages between the Registrant and Student A. She made him aware that she considered that he had been grooming her and doing things to her that she did not want. His response was “Jesus, stop! I get it. You didn’t say no so I assumed it’s because you wanted me to”.

51. On 7 October 2022, Student A made her complaint to her midwife mentor, VS, who gave evidence of Student A’s evident distress when making her disclosures.

The Panel’s findings of fact

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

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

54. The Panel found Student A to be a truthful witness. Her witness statement and oral evidence were consistent with her contemporaneous accounts when interviewed by AK on 13 and 20 October 2022.

55. The Panel noted that the Registrant was given a proper opportunity to respond to Student A’s detailed account of their relationship both in interview on 9 November 2022 and subsequently. Whilst offering a bare denial, he gave no alternative explanation, except to characterise it as a “consensual flirtatious relationship”. The Registrant did not claim that Student A consented to his sexual advances, but rather that they did not happen.

56. In the absence of a plausible response from the Registrant, the Panel had no reason to doubt Student A’s evidence, which was credible and cogent. The Panel found proved that the Registrant engaged with Student A in the sexual activities referred to in Schedule B. The Panel noted, however, that the reference to the Registrant attempting to perform oral sex on Student A occurred in July 2022 and, therefore, outside the period of January – June 2022 alleged in Particular 1b. With that one exception, the Panel found the Registrant engaged with Student A in all the sexual activities particularised in Schedule B.

57. With regard to the allegation contained in Particular 1b that these sexual activities occurred without Student A’s consent, the Panel concluded that the Registrant groomed Student A in preparation for making sexual advances towards her by frequently messaging her and appearing to take an interest in her welfare. He used his position of authority and power as a senior staff member as an implicit means of coercion and control and his physical strength to subject her to sexual activities, which she did her best to resist and to which she did not consent. The Panel therefore found Particular 1b proved.

Statutory Grounds

58. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved, or any of them, amounted to misconduct.

59. The Panel was mindful that the question whether the proven facts constituted misconduct are matters for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.

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

61. The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of Standard 9.1 of HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016), which states “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.

62. The Registrant was a Senior Lecturer and in a position of authority and influence in the University; he was aged 46 at the time. Patient A was a 22-year-old student who was volunteering in a department of the University over which the Registrant had charge.

63. The Registrant was aware that Student A was having problems at home, which she confided in him and he therefore knew that she was emotionally vulnerable. Within a short time, he initiated a sexually charged dialogue with Patient A, which he followed up with one-to-one meetings with her on University premises in which he made unsolicited sexual advances towards her of an increasingly intimate and forceful nature. He used his superior strength to overcome her resistance.

64. The Panel found as a fact that in the course of their ensuing sexual relationship the Registrant abused his position as a senior figure at the University to exploit Student A’s emotional vulnerability and dependence on him. The Panel considered his conduct in so doing to be a serious breach of professional boundaries and one which could properly be described as “deplorable” by the standards of ordinary, decent members of the public. This was compounded by his dishonesty in co-opting her to lie to Professor MC in June 2022 when complaints about his relationship with Student A first came to light, thereby preventing an investigation from continuing at that time and permitting his sexual exploitation of Student A to continue until October 2022.

65. The Panel found each of the proven Particulars to constitute misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.

Decision on impairment

66. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

67. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Panel took into account both the personal and public components of impairment. The personal component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as an Operating Department Practitioner, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The public component includes the need to protect service users and members of the public and to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

68. With regard to the personal component, the Panel noted that the Registrant had denied the main allegation at Particular 1b, stating “I completely refute engaging in any form of physical sexual activity with Student A as alleged in particular 1b”.

69. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight as to the consequences of his breach of professional boundaries appeared limited to the negative effect on himself.

70. The Registrant was remorseful about the effect of his behaviour on himself but seemed to have thought little, if at all, about the adverse effect of his behaviour on Student A, his colleagues, the University which employed him or his profession.

71. In the absence of any evidence of insight or remediation, the Panel concluded that there was a risk of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct.

72. The Panel also found the public component of impairment to be satisfied in this case. A member of the public, knowing of the Registrant’s sexually motivated misconduct towards a young female student, in relation to whom he had a position of authority and trust, and his dishonest attempts to prevent this from coming to the knowledge of his employer, would undoubtedly expect some restriction to be placed on his registration. Public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

Decision on sanction

73. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC.

74. The Panel noted that the Registrant in his statement dated 28 March 2025 expressed his wish to be removed from the Register.

75. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

76. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards, maintaining the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator.

77. 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.

78. The Registrant offered nothing by way of mitigation and the Panel could find none, except that he made admissions to a number of the Particulars. In his statement dated 28 March 2025, the Registrant made reference to having some health issues but provided no independent evidence of these and so the Panel was unable to give them any weight.

79. The Panel found the following aggravating factors:
• The Registrant abused his position of power to take advantage of a young and vulnerable student for his own sexual gratification. His behaviour was coercive, controlling and forceful
• His sexual abuse of Student A was deliberate, calculated and prolonged
• He abused the position of trust vested in him as a mentor of students within the University
• His dishonesty in covering up his relationship with Student A and persuading Student A to do likewise undermined the University’s processes and procedures to protect students and potentially undermined public trust
• His dishonesty also enabled him to continue and prolong his sexual abuse of Student A
• He has shown neither insight, remorse nor remediation, in the absence of which there is a significant risk of repetition.

80. The case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.

81. A Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct and dishonesty.

82. A Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate because the Panel could not formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s sexual misconduct, his exploitative attitude towards a student or his dishonesty. Sexual misconduct and dishonesty are attitudinal matters which are not susceptible to correction by the imposition of conditions of practice.

83. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order but, in light of its conclusion as to the attitudinal nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, his lack of insight even years after the events, and the consequent risk of repetition, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate.

84. The Sanctions Policy states that a striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious persistent and deliberate acts including:
• Dishonesty
• Abuse of professional position, including vulnerability
• Sexual misconduct
and “is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• Lacks insight
• Continues to repeat the misconduct
• Is unwilling to resolve matters”.

85. In the Panel’s judgement all the indicative criteria for a Striking Off Order are present in this case. The public is entitled to expect members of the profession to behave with decency, honesty and integrity, all of which qualities were conspicuously lacking in the Registrant’s conduct towards Student A. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be incompatible with his remaining on the Register.

86. Whilst the Panel took full account of the financial and other hardship to the Registrant, the need to protect the public and the wider public interest must take priority over the Registrant’s interests. The Panel concluded that the appropriate sanction is a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Simon Bettles from the Register on the date this order comes into effect

Interim Order

1. Mr Brady on behalf of the HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined.

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

3. Given the Panel’s findings that the Registrant’s actions are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent with that need for public protection and the wider public interest not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, came to the conclusion that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.

4. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.
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. This Interim Suspension is for a period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Simon Bettles