Jason Jordan

Preliminary Matters

Application for hearing to be partly in private

1. Ms Williamson, on behalf of the Registrant, explained that it was anticipated that there would be references to the Registrant’s health and personal circumstances. She applied for those parts of the hearing to be heard in private in order to protect the Registrant’s private life. Mr Barnfield, on behalf of the HCPC, supported the position.

2. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel decided to hear in private those parts of the hearing which related to his health and personal circumstances. It was satisfied that to do so was justified in order to protect the Registrant’s private life.

Background

3. The Registrant is a Physiotherapist registered with the HCPC.

4. On 20 March 2020, at approximately 10pm, the Registrant was driving his car on the East Lancashire Road. In trying to turn off the road, he lost control of his vehicle and collided with the hotel air conditioning units and fencing. He reported the accident inside the hotel to staff, who noted alcohol on his breath and the police were called.

5. At 10:30pm, police officers attended the scene. One of the officers noted a strong smell of alcohol from the Registrant, slurred speech and glazed eyes and requested the Registrant to take a roadside breath test. At 10:35pm, the Registrant failed the roadside breath test and was arrested and taken to the police station. At 11:30pm, the breath testing procedure was started during which the Registrant provided two evidential samples of breath for analysis. The Registrant failed the breath sample test– the lower of the two readings was 78 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 ml of breath.

6. On 9 October 2020, the Registrant appeared at Liverpool Knowsley & St Helens Magistrates’ Court and pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on 20 March 2020, after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. He was represented by a solicitor in court. He was fined £500, ordered to pay costs and a victim surcharge of £155 and was disqualified from driving for 17 months, with an option to have the disqualification reduced by 17 weeks if, by 9 September 2021, he paid for and took a driving course approved by the Secretary of State.

7. On 30 January 2021, the Registrant completed the approved Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Course for Drink-Drive Offenders.

8. On 22 March 2022, the Registrant completed the online renewal of his registration with the HCPC, in which he indicated that there had been a change to his character. He attached a letter to him from the solicitors’ firm which had represented him, dated 12 October 2020, confirming the details of the criminal conviction and sentence.

9. On 10 November 2022, the HCPC Fitness to Practise team received the information from the HCPC Registrations team, that the Registrant had made a character declaration in his registration renewal application (of 22 March 2022), regarding his criminal conviction and sentence on 9 October 2020.

10. On 8 December 2022, the Registrant responded to the HCPC’s request for further information and stated that his current employers were unaware of his conviction. The Registrant also stated that he did not inform the HCPC of his conviction as he thought that this would happen automatically.

11. On 23 January 2023, the HCPC spoke to the Head of Inpatient Therapies at Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), who was also the Registrant’s line manager. The Registrant’s line manager stated that she had not been aware of the Registrant’s conviction prior to receiving a letter from the HCPC and that an internal investigation was likely to take place.

12. An internal investigation was conducted by the Head Radiographer at the Trust. A disciplinary hearing subsequently took place on 22 May 2023. The Registrant was given a final written warning.

Decision on Facts

Evidence

13. In advance of the hearing, the Panel was provided with an HCPC bundle of witness statements and exhibits, which included the following:

a. The HCPC case summary, dated 12 May 2025;

b. Documentation from Merseyside Police, including a summary of the facts of the driving with excess alcohol conviction (MG5 case file);

c. A transcript of the Registrant’s police interview under caution held on 21 March 2020;

d. A witness statement, dated 25 July 2024, from CJ, a Case Manager within the Fitness to Practise Department at the HCPC. She reviewed the referral from the Registration’s Department (provided on 10 November 2022) regarding the Registrant’s character declaration in his online registration renewal, dated 22 March 2022. Having checked the Fitness to Practise Department’s database, she confirmed that there was no record of the Registrant making a self-referral to inform the HCPC of his conviction;

e. A witness statement, dated 3 September 2024, from LE, a Registration’s Manager within the HCPC. She reviewed the HCPC records and confirmed that the HCPC was not informed of any change to the Registrant’s character until 22 March 2022 when the Registrant submitted his renewal application using the online portal system. She confirmed that he marked that there were changes relating to his character and attached a copy of a solicitor’s letter setting out the details of the conviction.

f. A copy of a screenshot of the HCPC’s database regarding the Registrant’s registration and subsequent renewal;

g. A copy of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics in force at the time (2016), which, at Standard 9.5 states:

You must tell us as soon as possible if:
- You accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence.

14. On behalf of the Registrant, the Panel was also provided with:

a. The Registrant’s statement, dated 12 May 2025;

b. A copy of an HCPC email, dated 2 February 2022, inviting the Registrant to renew his registration;

c. A copy of an HCPC email to the Registrant, dated 22 March 2022, confirming successful submission of his renewal declaration and informing him that as he had made a character declaration, this would need to be reviewed by the fitness to practise team;

d. HCPC Policy document entitled Health assessments for drug and alcohol offences;

e. A bundle of testimonials and certificates relevant to the impairment stage.

Admissions

15. At the outset of the hearing, the Hearings Officer read out the particulars of the Allegation. Ms Williamson, on behalf of the Registrant, indicated that he admitted all of the factual particulars.

16. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the standing of the Registrant’s admissions. She drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Practice Note on Admissions (October 2024) and specifically the importance of not accepting any admissions unless satisfied that they were unequivocal. In particular, the Legal Assessor highlighted paragraph 13, which states:

In considering its approach to admissions, particularly admissions from registrants who are not represented, a panel must ensure that the overall fairness of the proceedings is secured. Panels will therefore want to ensure that, by way of example:

a. a registrant's admission is 'unequivocal' and that they are not making an admission for reasons of expediency or on some other inappropriate basis;

b. if a registrant admits an inference to be drawn from facts (for example, dishonesty or sexual motivation) the panel is satisfied that the registrant understands the legal test to be applied to that alleged fact;

c. a registrant understands that an allegation framed in terms of a ‘failure' to do something requires proof by the HCPC, or acceptance by the registrant, of a corresponding duty.

17. In respect of particular 3 alleging dishonesty, the Panel noted that the Registrant had previously indicated in an email to the HCPC, dated 8 December 2022, that the reason for the delay in him disclosing the conviction was because “At the time I was under the impression this happened automatically”, whereas in his witness statement, dated 12 May 2025, he described himself as having acted dishonestly. The Panel asked Ms Williamson for clarification, and she explained that the Registrant’s position was exactly as set out in the email of 8 December 2022, and it was sometime later that he realised he should have made enquiries to confirm whether the HCPC knew of his conviction and to declare it.

18. The Panel retired to consider whether the Registrant’s admissions were unequivocal, and therefore, whether to accept them so as to find the facts proved. In respect of particulars 1 and 2, the Panel was satisfied that these were unequivocal admissions which it could accept, noting that it had a copy of the certificate of conviction (relevant to particular 1) and that there had been a delay (from October 2020 to March 2022) in disclosing the conviction to the HCPC (relevant to particular 2). Accordingly, the Panel found particulars 1 and 2 proved

19. In respect of particular 3, the Panel was not satisfied that this was an unequivocal admission. It considered that the email of 8 December 2022 raised the issue of whether the Registrant had mistakenly not disclosed the conviction, being under the impression it would be done automatically, as opposed to acting dishonestly by deliberately concealing it. Ms Williamson’s clarification indicated that this was still the Registrant’s position regarding his non-disclosure at the time of the conviction. In all the circumstances, the Panel was not satisfied that the admission to particular 3 was a clear and unequivocal admission to dishonesty. Therefore, it did not accept the Registrant’s admission.

Findings of fact

20. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that the burden of proof was on the HCPC, and the standard of proof required was the civil standard, namely whether it was more likely than not that the alleged fact occurred. In relation to dishonesty, the Legal Assessor advised in accordance with the cases of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and Barton and Booth v R [2020]EWCA Criminal 575.

21. The Panel considered all the evidence produced by both parties and the submissions of Mr Barnfield on behalf of the HCPC and Ms Williamson on behalf of the Registrant.

Particular 3

Panel’s approach

22. The Panel, in its approach to deliberations, decided to consider the Registrant’s state of mind firstly at the time of the conviction. If it was satisfied that at that point, he had acted dishonestly in not disclosing his conviction, then it would find particular 3 proved. If it was not satisfied that he had acted dishonestly at that point, it would go on to consider the Registrant’s state of mind in March 2021, when he said he realised that the HCPC must not know about his conviction. If it was satisfied that he had acted dishonestly from that point in not disclosing his conviction, then it would find particular 3 proved only for the period from March 2021 to March 2022.

23. The Panel finds particular 3 proved for the period from March 2021 to 22 March 2022.

24. After the Panel had heard from the HCPC witnesses, CJ and LE, who gave factual evidence regarding their respective searches of the databases of the Fitness to Practise Department and the Registration Department, the Panel heard evidence from the Registrant.

25. The Registrant stated that in January 2020 he had been working in a Band 6 role on the Intensive Care Unit (ITU) at Aintree Hospital. He described how in February 2020 he was dealing with the preparation for a full Covid 19 breakout on ITU. He said there was a lot of uncertainty, and he was involved in ensuring staff had appropriate masks. As a result, his role increased, he was given added responsibility, was working extra hours beyond his usual finish time, [Redacted].

26. The Registrant also described a significant number of challenging personal and health factors which were impacting on him at around that time. [Redacted].

27. The Registrant described the events of 20 March 2020 which resulted in the car collision and ultimately the drink driving conviction.

28. The Registrant described how the chain of events following the incident, charge and then conviction continued to impact upon him [Redacted]. The Registrant said that his genuine belief at the time of receiving the conviction was that the police and/or the courts would, as a matter of course, inform the HCPC of his conviction. He accepted that he did not have any basis for this belief, nor had he taken any steps to check whether his belief was correct.

29. He explained that it was only after a time, in around March 2021, that he realised that the HCPC must not know about his conviction as he had not heard anything from them in respect of it. He accepted that at this stage he should have notified the HCPC of his conviction himself, but did not do so for fear of what that would entail and so he put his head in the sand.

30. In relation to not disclosing the conviction promptly once he had been convicted, the Panel considered that the Registrant had been credible and consistent about his belief that the police and/or the courts would automatically notify the HCPC about his conviction. Although he had not been able to provide a basis for that belief, the Panel noted that, under Ivey (above), it was not a requirement that a genuinely held belief must be reasonable. In this case the Panel did not, in fact, consider that the Registrant’s belief was reasonable, namely that a practitioner of eight years’ experience did not know of his personal responsibility and obligation to report his conviction “as soon as possible” as required under the Standards. Nevertheless, in light of all of the personal turmoil the Registrant was going through at that time, the Panel was not persuaded on the evidence before it that it was not a genuinely held belief.

31. In light of its conclusion that the Registrant had the genuine, albeit mistaken, belief that the police or courts would notify the HCPC of his conviction, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had initially acted dishonesty in not disclosing his conviction promptly to the HCPC. The Panel, therefore, considered his state of mind by March 2021.

32. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s evidence indicated a clear shift in his understanding around March 2021, in particular because no one within the HCPC had been in touch with him about the conviction. He said that he had a gradual realisation that nothing had happened and he was nervously awaiting an email which did not arrive. He said that fear got the better of him, so he did not check with the HCPC. This was because he was fearful of what it would entail, and the implications and he did not want to draw attention onto himself.

33. The Registrant accepted in answer to Panel questions that on some level he knew by not disclosing his conviction he was not following the Standards. He agreed that he knew that the HCPC needed to know about his conviction. He said he was going to disclose it at renewal (in March 2022) and so he therefore made a conscious decision to leave it. The Registrant also accepted that by this time the onus had shifted to him, and he made a conscious decision to delay. The Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s witness statement in which he said:

“I should have informed the HCPC when I was charged and of my conviction as soon as possible. At the time I was overwhelmed by shame, fear, and anxiety about the potential consequences and so I took the dishonest choice not to inform the HCPC.”

34. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant, in evidence, accepted that by March 2021 he knew he was required report the conviction to the HCPC and took the deliberate decision to withhold that information from the HCPC. Therefore, the Panel was satisfied that, subjectively, by March 2021, the Registrant knew of his obligation to disclose his conviction to the HCPC and took the conscious decision to deliberately conceal that information from the HCPC. The Panel considered that although this was conduct by omission, it was nevertheless a deliberate attempt to mislead the HCPC in respect of his character, so as to try to avoid the consequences. The Panel considered that objectively, by the standards of ordinary and decent people, such conduct would be regarded as dishonest.

Decision on Grounds

35. Mr Barnfield, on behalf of the HCPC, took the Panel through the HCPC case summary, and directed the Panel’s attention to the relevant case law in respect of misconduct. He submitted that the Registrant’s conduct breached Standards 9, 9.1 and 9.5 of the HCPC Standards:

36. Ms Williamson, on behalf of the Registrant, accepted that he had failed to act in accordance with the Standards and that his actions had been serious.

37. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In relation to misconduct, she advised the Panel in respect of a number of cases, including Roylance v GMC (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 311. The Legal Assessor advised that for conduct to amount to professional misconduct, it must fall short of what would be expected in the circumstances and that such a falling short must be serious and fall far below the expected standards. The Legal Assessor advised that the question of whether or not the facts found proved amounted to misconduct as alleged, was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement.

38. In relation to the conviction (particular 1), the Panel bore in mind that it is a statutory ground in itself by which a registrant’s fitness to practise may be impaired. It considered that this criminal conviction was serious as it would have placed the Registrant and other members of the public at risk of harm by his driving whilst his judgement was impaired by being twice over the legal limit of alcohol.

39. In relation to misconduct, the Panel considered whether the Registrant’s conduct in particulars 2 and 3 was so serious as to amount to misconduct.

40. In relation to particular 2, the Panel considered that this conduct, in and of itself, was serious. It considered that the Registrant’s unreasonable ignorance of the HCPC Standards, which required him to disclose his conviction to his regulator “as soon as possible”, meant that for some 17 months, the HCPC was not in a position to assess the Registrant’s character and his ability to practise safely and effectively as a Physiotherapist. The Panel considered that this had a significant impact on the potential safety of patients and the public, who would expect the registrants in whom they place their trust, to disclose any criminal convictions to the Regulator, so that their suitability to practise could be assessed by the Regulator.

41. In relation to particular 3, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s dishonesty from March 2021 in not disclosing his conviction, compounded the seriousness of his conduct. The Panel considered that whilst it was dishonesty by way of omission, it nevertheless persisted over the course of a year.

42. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct had fallen far below the standards expected of a Registrant and he had specifically breached Standards 9, 9.1 and 9.5 as follows:

9 – Be honest and trustworthy

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

9.5 – You must tell us as soon as possible if:

You accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence.

43. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct at particulars 2 and 3 was so serious as to amount to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

44. Having decided that particulars 2 and 3 amount to misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a consequence of either or both of conviction and misconduct.

45. The Registrant gave further oral evidence at the impairment stage. The Panel also heard oral evidence from two of the character witnesses who had provided written testimonials on the Registrant’s behalf:

a. KW, Consultant Physiotherapist within the specialist ventilation team at Aintree Hospital, who worked with the Registrant when he was on a rotation in 2018 and 2022, and subsequently from 2023 to date;

b. LC, Advanced Practice Physiotherapist within the specialist ventilation team at Aintree Hospital, who currently works with the Registrant and has done so for the previous three years.

46. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Impairment, and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the personal component and the public component.

47. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component, which looks at matters personal to the Registrant, such as, remorse, insight and remediation, all of which inform in respect of whether there is a future risk to the public. In respect of the dishonesty, the Panel considered that this was potentially an attitudinal trait, so consequently, it may be more difficult to demonstrate remediation in respect of it than for practice failings.

48. In relation to the personal component, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s oral evidence. It considered that he had given credible and candid evidence to the Panel.

Personal component

Impairment by reason of conviction

49. Specifically in relation to the conviction, the Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated genuine remorse and understood the seriousness of such a conviction and the impact it would have on public confidence in him and on the profession. The Panel accepted the challenging personal and professional circumstances the Registrant had been under at the time, including the impact of Covid on the ITU where he was working, [Redacted].

50. The Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated good insight. It was satisfied that he understood the [Redacted] factors he was dealing with at that time, [Redacted]. The Panel considered that the Registrant had put in place effective strategies to reduce the risk of repetition of the behaviour which underpinned the conviction.

51. The Panel also noted that, in the immediate aftermath of the collision, the Registrant had been transparent about what had happened to the hotel staff, to the police in his interview under caution and had subsequently pleaded guilty at court. The Panel considered that this too, supported the conclusion that the behaviour which resulted in the conviction had been out of character.

52. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that the risk of repetition of committing a similar offence in the future was low. Accordingly, in the Panel’s judgement, in respect of the personal component, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired by reason of his conviction.

Impairment by reason of misconduct

53. In relation to the misconduct, the Panel considered that it would always be serious not to disclose a conviction to the regulator in a timely manner, and then to dishonestly withhold that information. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel noted that the Registrant had not initially deliberately withheld the information about his conviction from the HCPC, rather it was when he later realised that the onus was on him to disclose, that he did not do so and his dishonesty was by way of omission. The Panel also noted that at the point of renewal in March 2022, when the Registrant was required to make a positive declaration in respect of his character, he did declare the conviction to the HCPC. Therefore, the dishonesty was not, in the Panel’s judgement compounded or repeated, and as such was not at the most serious end of the scale of dishonesty.

54. Specifically in relation to the misconduct, the Panel considered that the Registrant had demonstrated genuine remorse and good insight. It was satisfied that he had come to understand the wider impact of his non-disclosure and dishonesty not just on himself personally, but on patients, his colleagues, the Trust, the profession as a whole and the HCPC as the governing body. The Panel had regard to his evidence where he explained that he understood more how his dishonesty reflected on the profession and how he had risked the trust that the public and patients would have in him.

55. The Panel, recognising that dishonesty may be difficult to remediate, considered whether it was, in fact, capable of remediation by the Registrant. The Panel was satisfied from all the evidence, including the positive references and testimonials received, that the Registrant’s dishonesty had been out of character. The Panel was, therefore, satisfied that the Registrant’s dishonesty was capable of remediation.

56. The Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s misconduct had, in fact, been remedied. The Panel had regard to the references and testimonials of past and professional colleagues of the Registrant, all of whom attested to a high level of commitment and dedication on his part. Each of them confirmed that they were aware of the allegations against him. They attested to their own experience of his high standards of conduct and behaviour in the workplace, including his trustworthiness and honesty. The Panel had particular regard to the evidence of both KW and LC, very senior professional colleagues currently working with the Registrant in a specialised ventilation team. They had both taken the time to give oral evidence to the Panel and spoke extremely highly of the Registrant. It was clear to the Panel that he was a highly valued and respected member of the team who they trusted absolutely.

57. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had undertaken practical steps to properly understand the Standards expected of him. [Redacted], he had undertaken an ethics course: Ethics and Ethical Standards for HCPC regulated Health and Care Professionals. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had now thoroughly familiarised himself with the Standards expected of him and in addition had gained a good understanding of the importance of honesty and integrity in the workplace.

58. In light of all of the information before it, in the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant had attained a good level of insight into his professional obligations under the Standards; the importance of not concealing relevant matters from his regulator; and the fundamental requirement of honesty and trustworthiness of members of the profession and how a breach of that requirement breaches public trust and confidence in the profession and the regulator. As a consequence, the Panel was satisfied that the risk of repetition was low and the Registrant had remedied his misconduct, including his dishonesty.

59. Accordingly, in the Panel’s judgement, in respect of the personal component, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired by reason of his misconduct.

Public component

Impairment by reason of conviction

60. The Panel considered a key factor in this case was the public interest aspect, in particular the promotion and maintenance of public confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.

61. In respect of the conviction, the Panel considered that this was serious. The Registrant had placed members of the public at risk of harm through driving whilst his judgement was impaired by being twice over the legal limit for alcohol. Furthermore, he was a health care professional, and the public was entitled to expect that, whatever his own personal and professional difficulties, he would nevertheless adhere to the law and not take the decision to drive with excess alcohol impairing his judgement, thereby placing himself and others at risk.

62. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed and reasonable member of the public would be shocked and troubled at a Physiotherapist receiving such a conviction. The Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of current impairment were made in this case. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component by reason of the Registrant’s conviction.

Impairment by reason of misconduct

63. In respect of the misconduct, the Panel considered that this too was serious. The Registrant had not followed the professional obligations imposed on him by the Standards, accepting that although he had been qualified for eight years, he had not initially appreciated the responsibility on him to report his conviction to the HCPC. Furthermore, once he had come to appreciate that the onus was on him to disclose it, he had dishonestly and deliberately not informed the HCPC of the conviction in order to conceal it and avoid the consequences.

64. The Panel considered that the public was entitled to expect a Registrant to know and understand his professional responsibilities under his regulator’s Standards and to act with honesty and integrity. The Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession would be undermined to hear of a Registrant dishonestly disregarding a professional obligation to disclose a conviction to avoid the potential consequences. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component by reason of the Registrant’s misconduct.

Decision on Sanction

65. The hearing reconvened on 18 August 2025, for the Panel to consider sanction. The Panel heard evidence, called on behalf of the Registrant, from HT-M, Senior Therapy Lead based at the Trust’s Aintree Hospital where she is the Therapy Lead over the Medicine, On Call, Older Peoples and complex Ventilation inpatients services. HT-M told the Panel of the negative impact on the Hospital’s inpatients and on its staff in the department where the Registrant is currently based, were he to be suspended from practice for any time.

Submissions

66. Mr Slack set out the relevant principles regarding the imposition of a sanction but, as is the HCPC’s usual approach at the sanction stage, did not advance any specific sanction. He submitted that the case of HCPC v Mashonganyika, relied on by Ms Williamson, was of persuasive value only and was not binding on the Panel. Mr Slack also distinguished that case from this case, pointing out that there had been no dishonesty allegation in that case.

67. Ms Williamson reminded the Panel that the Registrant had referred himself to the HCPC and that the concerns were now some four years ago. Ms Williamson submitted that the Registrant had admitted all the matters alleged against him at the outset of the hearing, including dishonesty, albeit that the Panel had wanted to hear evidence regarding this matter.

68. Ms Williamson reminded the Panel of its finding that the Registrant had demonstrated genuine remorse and had understood the seriousness of his conviction and the impact it would have on public confidence in him and in the profession (in paragraph 49 above). She also submitted that the Panel had found the Registrant to have good insight and to have understood [Redacted] and factors he was dealing with at the relevant time. She referred to the Panel’s findings (in paragraph 50 above) where it accepted that the Registrant had [Redacted].

69. Ms Williamson reminded the Panel of its finding that the Registrant’s behaviour which had led to the conviction for drink-driving had been “out of character” (paragraph 51 above), and its conclusion that the risk of repetition in this case was “low” (paragraph 52 above). She also referred to the Panel’s finding that the Registrant had remedied his conviction and misconduct, including his dishonesty (paragraph 58 above). Ms Williamson reminded the Panel that it has assessed the dishonesty to be at the lower end of the scale of dishonesty.

70. Ms Williamson submitted that the Registrant was a highly valued and respected member of the physiotherapy staff at the Aintree Hospital and that a Suspension Order would be disproportionate in the circumstances of this case in terms of the impact this would have on members of the public.

71. Ms Williamson submitted that a Caution Order for 1 year was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case where the impairment found was on the public component alone and the conviction had involved a single isolated incident. Ms Williamson relied on the case of HCPC v Mashonganyika (dated 09 April 2025) which she submitted was a case “on all fours” with this case: there had been a conviction for drink-driving, and the registrant there had not reported that conviction to the HCPC for a similar period of 1 year. Ms Williamson acknowledged that there had been no dishonesty alleged in the Mashonganyika case but submitted that it had been open to the Presenting Officer to amend the allegation to include alleged dishonesty. She submitted that there was a need for consistency in sanction and, for that reason, the case was “very persuasive”.

Decision

72. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction the Panel was referred to, and took account of, the guidance set out in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Panel was aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish the Registrant, although it might have that effect, but it was to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Physiotherapy profession and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel also had in mind that any sanction it imposed must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the misconduct involved.

73. The Panel considered mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel first looked at the mitigating factors. The mitigating factors are:

- there are no previous regulatory findings against the Registrant;

- the Registrant made full admissions as to the facts at the hearing, and admitted the statutory grounds of conviction and misconduct;

- the Registrant had immediately reported crashing his car to the Hotel;

- the Registrant had developed good insight into his conviction and his misconduct for which he had apologised and shown genuine remorse;

- the Registrant had taken appropriate steps such that he had remedied his conviction and his misconduct.

74. The Panel considered whether there was any personal mitigation in relation to the Registrant’s family circumstances at the time of the conviction and/or misconduct. It concluded that the personal circumstances set out in paragraph 26 above relating to matters in his private life, and the fact that at the relevant time, the Registrant was working in a particularly stressful hospital setting during the Covid-19 pandemic amount to personal mitigation.

75. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel also considered and took account of the positive and supportive testimonial evidence.

76. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors:

- in driving whilst twice over the legal drink-driving limit, the Registrant had put himself and other road users at risk of potential harm;

- the dishonesty (which was effectively by omission and at the lower end of the scale) had persisted for a period of around a year.

77. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. This was not a case in which mediation was appropriate or proportionate as the Registrant remained in practice with the Trust.

78. The Panel decided that to take no action would not be appropriate given that neither the conviction nor the misconduct could be described as “relatively minor in nature”. The Panel considered that to ensure that public confidence in the profession was not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

79. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had in mind paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“ 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;

• The registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation”

80. The Panel referred to the Registrant’s good level of insight and to his having undertaken appropriate remediation regarding his conviction and misconduct which had, in the Panel’s view, reduced the level of the risk of repetition to “low”. The Panel accepted that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was “out of character” and considered that it was an isolated incident of omission rather than commission.

81. In these circumstances, the Panel also had in mind paragraph 102 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“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)”.

82. The Panel then went on to consider first whether a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate in this case, before considering the sanction of a Suspension Order.

83. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order and in particular the matters set out in paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

• the registrant has insight;

• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;

• there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;

• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;

• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;

• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;

• the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”.

84. The Panel also had in mind paragraph 108, which states:

108 “Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving:…..dishonesty….”.

85. The Panel concluded that as this was a case where the finding of impairment was on the public component only, it was not possible to devise appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions which would address the issues of public confidence in the profession and or send out an appropriate message regarding standards of conduct and behaviour in the profession. Conditions of practice are more appropriate where there are e.g., competency concerns which usually arise in the workplace. In this case, the Registrant’s conviction and misconduct took place outside the workplace and there are no clinical concerns with his practice.

86. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy:

“121 A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated;

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

87. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct in this case did represent a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. However, the Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant had good insight, had remedied his conviction and misconduct and that the issues were unlikely to be repeated. The Panel therefore considered very carefully whether the Registrant’s dishonest conduct required that it impose a Suspension Order.

88. The Panel was not satisfied that to maintain public confidence in the Physiotherapy profession and in its regulatory process, and to uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession, a Suspension Order was required in this case. The Panel concluded that such an Order would be punitive and therefore inappropriate and disproportionate in the circumstances of this case.

89. In reaching this conclusion the Panel re-considered paragraph 102 of the Sanctions Policy.

90. The Panel was satisfied that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a Caution Order.

91. The Panel decided that the period the Caution Order should be for two years. The Panel decided that this period would be appropriate and proportionate to maintain public confidence in the Physiotherapy profession and its regulatory body. Such an Order would send out an appropriate message to the profession that convictions and misconduct of this type would not be condoned.

92. The Panel took the view that a well-informed member of the public would consider that public confidence in the profession would be maintained and standards upheld where (i) the Registrant had been subject to regulatory proceedings where findings of conviction, misconduct and impairment had been reached, (ii) where the Registrant had good insight, shown appropriate and proper remorse and had remedied both his conviction and misconduct such that the risk of repetition was low and (iii) where there was evidence that the impact of a more severe sanction such as a Suspension Order would be to the significant disadvantage of patients and colleagues, that a Caution Order for two years was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

93. Accordingly, the Panel imposed a Caution Order for two years.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of two years from the date this Order comes into effect, the registration of Mr Jason Jordan is subject to a Caution Order.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Jason Jordan