Dermot Hynan

Preliminary Matters

Witness Key

1. Throughout this decision, the witnesses will be referred to as follows:

• HW, who at the relevant time was the Clinical Service Manager and Enhanced Role Physiotherapist at PhysioWorks. HW was responsible for undertaking the disciplinary investigation into the Registrant as part of his employment by the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust within the PhysioWorks service (“the Trust”).

• JS, who at the relevant time was a Band 8a Enhanced Role Podiatrist and Clinical Lead for the Foot and Ankle Podiatry Team within the Trust. JS was involved in clinical supervision of the Registrant. JS was responsible for conducting an audit of the Registrant’s patients’ records.

• David Holland, an expert witness instructed by the HCPC to prepare a report on the Registrant’s practice.

• Patient A, the primary complainant who reported receiving massages from the Registrant.

• Patient C, who states that they received massage from the Registrant.

• Patient D, who states that they received massage from the Registrant.

Service

2. The Panel first considered the issue of service as the Registrant was not in attendance. The Panel was referred to the service bundle which had been provided to the Panel in advance of the hearing.

3. The Panel had been provided with a Certificate signed by the Registrar dated 19 June 2025, detailing the Registrant’s registered email address on the HCPC Register.

4. The Panel had also been provided with the Notice of Hearing letter dated 19 June 2025 sent to the Registrant, on that date, to his registered electronic mail address, as it appeared in the HCPC Register. The Notice of Hearing letter confirmed the dates (8-19 December 2025) and times of the hearing as well as informing the Registrant that this would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant an opportunity to attend and/or make submissions at the hearing. A follow-up letter was also sent on 1 December 2025 to confirm that the hearing dates had been reduced and would now be 8-11 December 2025.

5. The service bundle also contained a delivery notice provided by Microsoft Outlook to confirm that delivery of the email was completed on 19 June 2025, at 16:11.

6. The Hearings Officer submitted that good service had been effected.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the Health Professions Order 2001 and the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”), namely rule 6. The Legal Assessor advised that good service would be effected by notifying the Registrant of the time, date and venue (virtual) of the hearing at his registered electronic mail address, with 28 days’ notice.

8. The Panel was satisfied on the evidence before it, that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the hearing today had been served on the Registrant, having been sent to the Registrant at his registered electronic address on 19 June 2025. The Panel therefore determined that notice had been properly served in accordance with the Rules.

Proceeding in Absence

9. Ms Danti submitted that, having found good service, the Panel should proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself.

10. Ms Danti referred the Panel to the main bundle which contained correspondence from both the Registrant and his legal representative indicating that neither he nor the representative would be attending the hearing.

11. Ms Danti submitted that there had been no request for an adjournment and any adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at a later date.

12. Ms Danti submitted that it is in the interest of the HCPC and the wider public interest that the hearing proceeds without further delay given the age of the Allegation.

13. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the factors it should take into account when considering proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. This included reference to rule 11 of the Rules and to the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, R v Jones (Anthony) [2003] 1AC1 and Sanusi v GMC [2019] EWCA Civ 1172. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS guidance ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ dated August 2025.

14. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the following correspondence which had been sent by the Registrant and his legal representative:

Email sent from legal representative to HCPTS on 25 November 2025 at 10:10

‘I have emailed your solicitors today to confirm that the Registrant or his representative will not be attending the hearing. I have sent them the written submission which I trust will be sent to you once they have reviewed this.’

Email sent from the legal representative to the HCPC on 25 November 2025 at 09:59

‘Please find attached the signed statement of agreed facts and the documents the Registrant would like to submit. As you will note the Registrant or his representative will not be attending the hearing. Please note that no discourtesy is meant by the non-attendance. The Registrant has accepted all allegations and impairment which was clear in the notice to admit facts previously submitted. The Registrant has signed the attached statement so as to avoid the need for the witnesses to be called and any further distress being caused to them.’

Email sent from the Registrant to the HCPC on 24 November 2025 at 22:08

‘Please accept my sincere apologies for non attendance of this hearing and please do not take it as a mark of disrespect. As I said in my other statement I’m completely aware of the distress that I have caused the many people and institutions involved and do not want to create more stress on them by needing witnesses at the hearing. I also have to consider my obligations [redacted]. I would like to assure you that I have strived to lead a decent life and that this episode was and is the complete opposite to my character.’

15. The Panel considered all the information before it, together with the submissions made by Ms Danti on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing letter had been sent to the Registrant on 19 June 2025 informing him of the hearing.

16. The Panel concluded that it was reasonable to exercise its discretion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant for the following reasons:

• The Registrant is legally represented and both he and his representative have communicated with the HCPC/HCPTS in response to the Notice of Hearing letter to confirm that they will not be attending. The Registrant has therefore made an informed decision to voluntarily and deliberately absent himself.

• The Registrant has not sought an adjournment of the hearing and there is no indication from him that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing this hearing would be unlikely to secure his attendance.

• This case is an old one with the majority of the Particulars of Allegation dating back to 2017. It is in the public interest as well as the Registrant’s interest for the case to be brought to a conclusion without further delay.

• The Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions. However, he has provided some information to the HCPC, including an agreed statement of facts in which he admits the Allegation. This information is included within the bundle for the Panel to take into account when reaching its decisions.

Privacy Application

17. Ms Danti submitted that the Panel should proceed in private where it was necessary to do so to protect the health and personal aspects relating to the Registrant.

18. The Panel heard and took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ dated February 2025.

19. The Panel accepted the submissions made by Ms Danti. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, any health issues relating to the Registrant should be kept private, as he has a right to protection of his private life, so far as it relates to his health. Similarly, matters which relate to personal aspects of his life such as his family/relationships should be heard in private. The Panel was satisfied that the elements of the evidence which relate to the Registrant’s health and personal matters can be easily separated from other evidence, and thus only part of the hearing should be held in private.

Background

20. The Registrant is a registered Podiatrist.

21. The Registrant was employed by the Trust as a Band 6 Specialist Podiatrist from 26 January 2015, within the PhysioWorks service.

22. In or around December 2017, the Registrant was successfully promoted to a Band 7 Advanced Musculoskeletal Podiatrist starting in March 2018.

23. On 10 November 2017, Patient A attended a podiatry appointment with the Registrant to address heel pain. On 8 December 2017, Patient A attended a further podiatry appointment with the Registrant.

24. Patient A cancelled her third appointment with the Registrant which was planned for 15 February 2018 and requested a change of clinician, specifically female. It was subsequently alleged by Patient A that she had received massages from the Registrant during her two previous appointments. Specifically, Patient A alleged that when conducting a leg massage, which involved the Registrant lightly stroking the inside of her thigh, his fingers went under her knicker elastic and across her buttocks. Patient A reported feeling uncomfortable about the treatment she had received from the Registrant and that she had not consented to the treatment. Upon review of Patient A’s notes, it is alleged that there was no mention of massage having been performed. Furthermore, massage was not part of clinical practice by Podiatrist’s at the Trust.

25. In light of the allegations by Patient A, the Trust started an investigation, and on 6 June 2018 the Registrant was told that he would be fully supervised in clinic due to a serious allegation having been made against him. He was supervised by JS on 7 June 2018, and the following day the Registrant went on sick leave.

26. In the course of the Trust’s investigation into the concerns raised by Patient A, a further seven patients (B – G, J) were identified as allegedly having received massages from the Registrant for their diagnosis of either Plantar Fasciitis or Achilles Tendinopathy. It is alleged that none of these massages were recorded within the patients’ notes.

27. As part of the Trust’s investigation JS was asked to conduct an audit of the Registrant’s patients’ clinical notes. As a result of that audit, concerns came to light regarding the Registrant’s record-keeping. Although the record-keeping audit was commissioned after Patient A’s complaint, the Trust allegedly had existing concerns about the Registrant’s note keeping and this had been raised with him during supervisions.

28. On 30 October 2018, the Registrant was initially referred by HW to the HCPC.

29. The Trust held a disciplinary hearing on 27 February 2019.

30. Following the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, HW sent a further referral about the Registrant to the HCPC. The referral was completed on 4 March 2019.

Decision on Facts

31. Following the preliminary matters, the Allegation was read into the transcript.

32. Ms Danti submitted that the Panel should find the facts proved by admission.

33. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Admissions’ dated October 2024.

34. The Panel had careful regard to Notice to Admit facts document included in the bundle. This is signed by the Registrant and within it he admits all the Particulars of the Allegation and confirms that he accepts the contents of the witness statements produced by the HCPC in readiness for the hearing.

35. The Panel also took into account the statement of the Registrant dated 23 October 2025, in which he refers to the Notice to Admit facts and confirms again that he fully admits the Allegation.

36. Finally, the Panel had regard to the Statement of Agreed Facts which was type signed by the Registrant on 24 November 2025 and provided to the HCPC by the Registrant’s legal representative on 25 November 2025.

37. In part, the Statement of Agreed Facts reads as follows:

‘Between August 2017 and June 2018, the Registrant purported to provide massage therapy to 8 patients.

Had he done so in good faith, this would have been outside the scope of his practice. It was not.

The Registrant admits that when he purported to provide massage therapy, he was not attempting to undertake a proper, if out of scope, clinical intervention but that his actions were not clinically justified and were sexual. In Patient A and C cases the Registrant touched their thighs and/or buttocks.

The Registrant further admits that he did not record that he had provided massage therapy to Patients A-G and J nor obtain informed consent to do so. In the light of the Registrant’s admissions, it will be understood that the Registrant was not in fact performing massage therapy at all – he was sexually assaulting his patients – and therefore could not obtain informed consent.

The Registrant’s admits that his failure to record that he had provided massage therapy was dishonest. He knew that to make any record would result in his practice being scrutinised and by not recording that he had provided massage therapy he sought to avoid this and conceal what he was doing.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is accepted by the Registrant that had he recorded providing massage therapy to the relevant patients this too would have been dishonest in that it would not have accurately reflected what he was doing.

When the concerns about the Registrant’s practice in respect of Patients A-G and J came to light the Trust conducted an audit of the Registrant’s records from May 2015-2018.

The Registrant accepts that his records were inadequate for the period audited in that he had not recorded gaining patient consent in respect of 10 patients , had not recorded sufficient detail of the assessment or clinical examination he had performed for 7 patients, had not recorded sufficient detail of the treatment undertaken for 10 patients, had not recorded sufficient detail of the treatment plan for 7 patients and had not recorded the severity and/ or duration of the presenting complaint for 3 patients.

On 7 June 2018, the Registrant was made subject of local level restrictions whereby he would have been accompanied by a chaperone at all times when seeing patients.

The Registrant accepts that he knew he had an obligation to inform the HCPC of this and that he did not do so. The Registrant further accepts that he was dishonest in failing to inform the HCPC.’ [sic]

38. In considering its approach to admissions, the Panel acknowledged that it must ensure that the overall fairness of the proceedings is secured.

39. The Panel was satisfied from the evidence referred to above, that the Registrant understands what is alleged against him, including the legal tests to be applied, and that he has had the benefit of independent legal advice to support him with the fitness to practise process.

40. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's admission is 'unequivocal' and that there is no evidence that he is making an admission for reasons of expediency or on some other inappropriate basis.

41. The Panel considered that the HCPC has followed the correct procedure in relation to Admissions. It has made use of its standard directions in allowing the Notice to Admit facts to be served which the Registrant duly returned admitting to all facts. Furthermore, as is evident from the information in the bundle, the HCPC has worked with the Registrant and his legal representative to define and narrow the issues which has resulted in the production of the Agreed Statement of Facts.

42. In light of all the above, the Panel was satisfied that it could properly accept the admissions, and the Chair announced for the record that the Particulars of Allegation were proven by virtue of the admissions.

43. Given that all the factual Particulars of Allegation are proved by admission, there was no need for further evidence to be adduced by the HCPC to prove any of the facts.

44. The Panel noted that it is a matter for its own judgement whether or not the statutory grounds are met and whether there is current impairment. It was satisfied that notwithstanding the admissions, it had been provided with all relevant information to enable it to understand the context and seriousness of the case, so that it could make informed sequential decisions regarding grounds, impairment, and sanction.

Decision on Grounds

Submissions

45. Ms Danti submitted that the statutory grounds of misconduct and lack of competence are both engaged in this case.

46. Ms Danti referred to the cases of Calhaem [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin), Holton v GMC [2006] EWHC 2960, and Roylance v General Medical Council (No2) [2000] 1AC.

47. In relation to misconduct, Ms Danti submitted that the conduct was in breach of the following HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics (2016):

1.1. You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.

1.2. You must work in partnership with service users and carers, involving them, where appropriate, in decisions about the care, treatment or other services to be provided.

1.3. You must encourage and help service users, where appropriate, to maintain their own health and well-being, and support them so they can make informed decisions.

1.4. You must make sure that you have consent from service users or other appropriate authority before you provide care, treatment or other services.

1.7. You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.

2.1. You must be polite and considerate.

2.3. You must give service users and carers the information they want or need, in a way they can understand.

3.1. You must keep within your scope of practice by only practising in the areas you have appropriate knowledge, skills and experience for.

3.2. You must refer a service user to another practitioner if the care, treatment or other services they need are beyond your scope of practice.

6.2. You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

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

10.1. You must keep full, clear, and accurate records for everyone you care for, treat, or provide other services to.

10.2. You must complete all records promptly and as soon as possible after providing care, treatment or other services.

48. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant had also breached the following standards in the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Chiropodists/Podiatrists that were in place at the time of the Registrant’s employment within the Trust (pre-2023 Standards):

1.1. know the limits of their practice and when to seek advice or refer to another professional

2.1. understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times

2.2. understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council

2.3. understand the need to respect and uphold the rights, dignity, values, and autonomy of service users including their role in the diagnostic and therapeutic process and in maintaining
health and wellbeing

2.4. recognise that relationships with service users should be based on mutual respect and trust, and be able to maintain high standards of care even in situations of personal incompatibility

2.6. understand the importance of and be able to obtain informed consent

2.7. be able to exercise a professional duty of care

3.1. understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct

4.2. be able to make reasoned decisions to initiate, continue, modify or cease treatment or the use of techniques or procedures, and record the decisions and reasoning appropriately

4.4. recognise that they are personally responsible for and must be able to justify their decisions

4.5. be able to make and receive appropriate referrals

8.1. be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinion to service users, colleagues and others

8.6. understand the need to provide service users or people acting on their behalf with the information necessary to enable them to make informed decisions

9.1. be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others

9.3. understand the needs to engage service users and carers in planning and evaluating diagnostics, treatments and interventions to meet their needs and goals

10.1. be able to keep accurate, comprehensive and comprehensible records in accordance with applicable legislation, protocols, and guidelines

14.4. be able to undertake and record a thorough, sensitive and detailed assessment, using appropriate techniques and equipment.

49. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant’s conduct in each of the Particulars was individually and collectively serious professional misconduct.

50. Ms Danti submitted that eight patients had been subjected to conduct that was sexual. They had not consented to massage nor was it clinically justified or indicated. The massage was provided outside the scope of practice, and the patients were violated which caused a risk of harm. She submitted that both Patient C and Patient A state that they felt confused and uncomfortable.

51. Ms Danti submitted that record keeping is a fundamental requirement of good professional practice in healthcare and is essential to ensure continuity of care and identify improvements/challenges a patient might be having. Ms Danti submitted that the poor recording keeping impacted on multiple patients and could have hampered the care they received and placed them at risk of harm. Furthermore, the dishonesty in not recording massage therapy for the eight patients identified makes matters more serious, as honesty is integral in healthcare.

52. Ms Danti submitted that the dishonesty was numerous, firstly as it related to multiple incidents with multiple patients and secondly because it also related to the Registrant not informing the HCPC about the restrictions placed on him by the Trust.

53. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant lacked competence in relation to his record keeping. She submitted that a fair sample of his work had been analysed and that he should be judged by the standard of a Band 6 and Band 7, given he undertook both roles during the relevant time period. She submitted that at those grades, it would be expected that a registrant would consistently demonstrate adequate record keeping within their usual practice. She submitted that the Registrant was made aware by the Trust that his record keeping was not adequate and he was given an opportunity to improve. The issues were discussed with him during supervision and support was provided to assist him, including 1-1 support. Despite this he did not maintain accurate and adequate clinical records.

Legal Advice

54. In relation to misconduct, the Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC (no.2) [2000] AC 311 and to the HCPC Standards. The Legal Assessor advised that there was no settled definition of misconduct, and it was for the Panel to say in the circumstances of the case whether the behaviour crossed the threshold properly to be categorised as misconduct. The Panel could approach the question by deciding whether an act or omission on the part of the Registrant represented a serious falling short of the Standards to be expected of a HCPC registrant. However, it is important to note that not every omission or wrongdoing necessarily constitutes misconduct.

55. In relation to lack of competence, the Legal Assessor advised on the differences between the statutory grounds, with reference to the case of Calhaem v GMC [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin).

Panel Decision

56. In relation to Particulars 1 - 8, 10, 11 and 12, the Panel considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.

57. The Panel at all times kept in mind the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public which includes protecting service users, promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

58. The Panel took into account the Standards which were in place at the time to which the Particulars of Allegation relate. The Panel bore in mind that a departure from the Standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct.

59. The Panel concluded that the behaviours of the Registrant in relation to facts found proven do individually and collectively amount to serious professional misconduct.

60. The Panel took into account that the actions of the Registrant were directly related to his Podiatrist role and took place whilst undertaking his job at the Trust, in which he was Grade 6 practitioner and following a promotion a Grade 7.

61. The Panel had careful regard to the HCPC Standards and concluded that the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour fell far below the standards expected of a registered Podiatrist.

62. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016), in particular standards:
1.1, 1.2. 1.4, 1.7, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 6.2, 9.1 and 10.1.

63. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Chiropodists/Podiatrists (pre-2023), in particular standards:
1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 8.6, 10.1, 14.4.

64. Based on the proven facts, the Panel considered that the misconduct falls into four interlinked areas relating to the Registrant undertaking his Podiatrist role at the Trust: i) dishonestly not maintaining accurate clinical records in that he did not record massage therapy; ii) not obtaining and recording informed consent for massage therapy; iii) committing sexual actions on patients by practising outside of the scope of his practice in providing massage therapy which was not clinically justified and which for two patients included inappropriate touching of thighs and buttocks; and iv) dishonestly not informing the HCPC that he had restrictions placed on his practice on 6 June 2018.

65. In relation to (i), the dishonesty in not maintaining accurate clinical records in that he did not record massage therapy, the Panel took into account that based on the evidence and the admission from the Registrant, this conduct had been repeated in relation to eight patients, on numerous occasions, across numerous dates spanning July 2017 to June 2018. The Panel concluded that this is serious dishonesty as it involved the Registrant making a deliberate decision not to record the massage therapy, and thereby concealing it, as he knew if he did so that his practice would be scrutinised. The dishonesty only came to light as a result of Patient A raising the issue with the Trust as she had felt ‘uncomfortable, violated and out of sorts’ when the Registrant had massaged her. In acting as he did the Registrant breached multiple Standards as found by the Panel above. In particular, the Registrant did not ensure that his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him as a professional and in the Podiatrist profession. He also did not maintain accurate, comprehensive and comprehensible patient records. Trust is vital in ensuring patients feel safe and supported and the Registrant’s conduct undermined this. Accurate records are crucial for patient safety and continuity of care and improving health outcomes. In acting as he did the Registrant disregarded this and placed patients at risk of harm.

66. In relation to (ii), not obtaining and recording informed consent for massage therapy; the Panel took into account that this occurred in relation to eight patients, on numerous occasions, across a twelve-month period. The conduct was a serious departure from what was expected in the circumstances and was in breach of numerous of the Standards which relate to consent and allowing patients to make informed decisions. The Panel had regard to the statement of HW who states that ‘all clinical staff are required to obtain consent prior to assessing or treating patients.’ HW refers to numerous policies and procedures in relation to consent, and in quoting from the College of Podiatry, states, ‘consent is at the heart of the relationship of trust between patient and practitioner…you must be satisfied that your patient…has given their valid consent to the procedure you are about to undertake.’ The Panel took into account that as a senior grade Podiatrist, the Registrant would have been well aware of the importance of gaining consent and in not doing so acting contrary to the best interests of patients.

67. In relation to (iii) the Panel took into account that the Registrant’s actions were sexual. This sexual conduct was repeated in relation to 8 patients and for 2 of those patients involved touching their thighs/buttocks. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct was a very serious departure from the Standards and was a pattern of behaviour. These were patients who had placed their trust and confidence in the Registrant to provide clinical care for them. Instead, his conduct involved nonconsensual, non-clinically justified massage, outside of the scope of practice, which was sexual in nature. It resulted in known emotional harm to Patients A, and C. Patient A felt ‘uncomfortable…violated and confused.’ Patient C felt ‘uncomfortable and did not want to be in contact with [the Registrant].’ It also impacted on patient trust, with Patient D reporting that ‘when you see a clinician, you presume that what they say to you is right and you do what they ask you to do.’

68. Although the Registrant has admitted that the conduct was sexual, even if it were not, the Panel still considered that it would have amounted to misconduct. Practitioners should understand and abide by their scope of practice, to ensure they provide safe and effective care to their patients and abide by any regulations, policies, and procedures in place. The Registrant was not insured to provide massage therapy, and it was contrary to Trust policy, wherein the correct pathway would have been to refer a patient to a Physiotherapist.

69. In relation to (iv) dishonestly not informing the HCPC that he had restrictions placed on his practice on 6 June 2018, the Panel also considered this to be serious such as to amount to serious professional misconduct. The requirement to inform the HCPC is to ensure public safety by declaring any changes which would impact on an ability to work safely and effectively as a registered health professional. By not informing the HCPC, the Registrant deprived the HCPC an opportunity to consider what, if any, action it needed to take to ensure public protection in accordance with the overarching objective. Hiding information of this nature from the HCPC erodes public trust in the profession and the regulator.

70. The Panel found that overall, the Registrant’s actions were inconsistent with what is expected of a registered Podiatrist, falling far below the Standards expected.

71. For the above reasons, the Panel concluded that the conduct found proved individually and collectively does amount to serious professional misconduct.

72. The Panel next considered whether the actions at 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, and 8a amounted to a lack of competence. The Panel did not find the conduct in question related to a lack of competence but rather, as already set out in this decision, amounts to misconduct. The Registrant deliberately chose to exclude recording the massage therapy, as he knew that he should not be doing it and was trying to conceal his conduct.

73. Finally, the Panel had regard to Particular 9 which the HCPC pleads amounts to misconduct and/or lack of competence. The Panel first considered, following the case of Calheam (ibid), whether the evidence in relation to the matters found proved, represented a fair sample of the Registrant’s work. In this regard, the Panel had in mind that the Registrant’s employment with the Trust started on 1 April 2014. Therefore, the period covered by Particular 9 relates to a significant period of his professional practice at the Trust. The evidence comes from an audit undertaken by JS at the Trust and included randomly selecting samples of ten patients from each of the following weeks 11 December 2017, 23 April 2018, and 21 May 2018. JS reviewed thirty patients in total against an audit template.

74. The Panel also noted that concerns regarding the Registrant’s record keeping initially became known in 2015. The evidence from JS, and corroborated by HW, shows that these concerns were discussed during the Registrant’s annual appraisal on 29 May 2015. This discussion refers to the notes as ‘being brief and lacking in detail’. On 18 May 2016, it is noted that the Registrant ‘does still struggle with regard to thoroughness of clinical notes…’ In January 2018, JS commenced direct clinical supervision with the Registrant. The supervision sessions on 8 March 2018 and 19 April 2018 included discussions on record keeping.

75. The Panel was satisfied on the basis of this evidence in relation to Particular 9, that there was a fair sample of his work on which to judge his professional performance.

76. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s standard of professional performance was “unacceptably low”. In considering this, the Panel had regard to the case of Holton (ibid) to the effect that the standard of performance was to be judged against the standard of professional work reasonably to be expected of the practitioner of the same grade, in this case that of a Band 6/Band 7 Podiatrist.

77. The Panel considered that the Registrant was in a senior role, and yet he was not consistently able to maintain adequate clinical records across a three-year period, which is a basic and fundamental skill. This was despite guidance, training and support being provided to him by the Trust and opportunities to improve. The Panel also noted that while the evidence showed the Registrant was capable of improvement, he did not meet the standard the PhysioWorks service or Trust required.

78. Although there was no evidence of any harm being caused to patients as a result of the Registrant’s deficiencies in record keeping skills, (excluding the massage which is dealt with in the misconduct decision), the Panel concluded that harm could have been caused. This is because adequate records are crucial for patient safety and continuity of care and improving health outcomes.

79. In the Panel’s judgment, it was evident that the Registrant had been unable, over a significant period of time, to apply his skills and knowledge to maintain adequate clinical records in order to practise safely and effectively. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant’s professional performance was “unacceptably low” for the role he was engaged to fulfil.

80. Accordingly, the Panel found the statutory ground of lack of competence proved in relation to Particular 9.

81. The Panel considered that Particular 9 also engaged the statutory ground of misconduct, in relation to 9(a), recording of gaining consent. The Panel noted that the records for each patient seen by the Registrant (A-T), apart from omitting treatment information on massage, is that informed consent from the patient to examination and treatment has not been documented, which is in direct contradiction to HCPC Standards 1.4 and 10.1 and 10.2 (HCPC Standards of Performance, Conduct and Ethics 2016). It is also in contradiction to the Trust policy on consent and The College of Podiatry Standards. The Registrant was, by his admission, fully aware of the requirement to record consent having been provided with training and emails from the Trust highlighting the same. Furthermore, the record keeping template on the Trust system includes a tick box relating to patient consent, which would have been simple therefore to record. However, it was not done. Given the Registrant’s seniority and experience, his actions in not recording patient consent fell far below the standards expected and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

Submissions

82. Ms Danti submitted that the misconduct in this case is serious as it relates to sexual and dishonest conduct and involved harm to patients.

83. Ms Danti submitted that all four limbs of the NMC V Grant test are engaged. Ms Danti submitted that each element of the Allegation is serious as the Registrant’s conduct put patients at risk of harm.

84. Ms Danti referred the Panel to the explanations provided by the Registrant to the Trust during the investigation in 2018. She submitted that whilst the Registrant apologised, he was inconsistent in his explanations as to whether he remembered massaging the patients.

85. [redacted]

86. Ms Danti referred to the statement provided in the bundle which provides an apology, which the Panel may consider relevant to insight. She submitted that what was relevant is the notable absence of reflection on the conduct being sexual and the degree of harm it did and could have caused.

87. Ms Danti submitted that whilst the Registrant admits dishonesty, there is no details about why he acted in this way and what impact his conduct had on the public.

88. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant’s insight into his conduct is lacking and remains limited.

89. In relation to remediation, Ms Danti referred the Panel to the Registrant’s statement in which he mentions completing a professional boundaries course [redacted]. Ms Danti submitted that there was no evidence of any CPD or training relating to the record keeping or dishonesty aspects of the case.

90. Ms Danti submitted that given the lack of insight and limited remediation, the risk of repetition remains.

91. Ms Danti informed the Panel that the HCPC is not aware of the Registrant’s current employment status, but as of 16 January 2025, it is understood that he was not practising.

92. Ms Danti submitted that the Panel should find impairment on the personal component.

93. In relation to the public component, Ms Danti submitted that some patients have suffered harm and others were placed at risk of suffering harm.

94. Ms Danti submitted that the public is entitled to expect regulated healthcare professionals not to touch them inappropriately or touch them in a sexual way, which is not consented to and not clinically justified. The public should also be able to trust that regulated professionals will act with honesty and integrity and uphold the values of the profession.

95. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant had breached the fundamental tenets of the profession, had brought the profession into disrepute, and had behaved dishonestly on repeated occasions.

96. Ms Danti submitted that the public would lose trust in the regulator if a finding of impairment were not made in this case given the very serious nature of the admitted facts.

Legal Advice

97. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to impairment. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel should have regard to both the personal and public components and keep in mind the wider public interest. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ dated August 2025, and the Practice Note on ‘Professional Boundaries’ dated September 2024. The Panel was referred to the cases of, CHRE v (1) NMC & (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin), and PSA v HCPC & Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 and GMC and Armstrong [2021] EWHC 1658 (Admin).

Panel Decision

98. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal perspective and then from the wider public perspective. The Panel had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on impairment and professional boundaries.

99. In relation to the personal component, in accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note (Impairment), the Panel considered whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.

100. The Panel kept in mind that it should consider both statutory grounds of misconduct and lack of competence when deciding on impairment. The Panel did consider both grounds but due to the inherent seriousness of findings of sexual and dishonest conduct, the Panel’s main focus was on examining those elements of the case.

101. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character such as sexual conduct, and dishonesty, as found in this case may be harder to remediate. The Panel had regard to its findings that the Registrant’s sexual and dishonest conduct was repeated, involved multiple patients, and persisted for approximately twelve months until Patient A raised a complaint with the Trust. The Panel considered that this repeated conduct, with an apparent disregard for the impact on his patients, some of whom suffered emotional harm, suggested an attitudinal issue.

102. Given the serious nature of the sexual and dishonest conduct and the apparent attitudinal issues, the Panel considered that it would be extremely difficult for the Registrant to adequately remediate. In relation to the other aspects of the case, such as failing to gain consent, and the lack of competence in record keeping, the Panel considered that these aspects are usually more easily remediated because they can be taught by learning and having strategies in place to support. However, the Panel did note that the Registrant’s failings in this regard had persisted over a length of time and had remained despite training and support being in place from the Trust.

103. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant was of previous good character and in relation to his record keeping this was showing signs of improvement. However, this continued to be of concern to his employers especially as he was a senior practitioner.

104. The Panel considered whether the Registrant had demonstrated an understanding of how and why the misconduct had occurred, and whether or not he exhibited genuine remorse, insight and understanding. Further, the Panel were looking for evidence to demonstrate what if any steps the Registrant would take to avoid a repetition of the sexual and dishonest misconduct reoccurring. The Panel also looked to see if there was evidence of the Registrant’s understanding of the impact the misconduct had on the patients as well as the Podiatrist profession.

105. The Panel next had regard to whether the Registrant’s sexual and dishonest conduct has been remedied. The Panel took into account the documentary evidence provided by the Registrant in advance of the hearing.

106. In relation to insight, the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant did admit to the Allegation. In a recent email to the HCPC, the Registrant states ‘I’m completely aware of the distress that I have caused the many people and institutions involved and do not want to create more stress on them by needing witnesses at the hearing [redacted]’ Whilst admitting the Allegation does show some limited insight, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s evidence provided to support the admissions was superficial. The Registrant’s response does not engage with the full weight of what was alleged against him and which he ultimately admitted.

107. The Registrant states that he has completed a 3-day professional boundaries course which helped him to take responsibility for his actions and supplemented this with a 1-day additional course to help him crystallise what he had learned. [redacted]. The Registrant states that he is fully aware of the amount of people that his actions have affected and to the scale of the distress that he has caused. He expresses his deepest remorse for his conduct.

108. The Panel had no independent evidence that the Registrant had completed courses on professional boundaries nor the content of the training to assess its relevance in terms of the factual findings. In any event, the Panel had no reflective pieces from the Registrant to address his actions, particularly the sexual and dishonest elements. There was no evidence of what the Registrant had learnt on the courses or how he would put this learning into professional practice. The Panel found that his evidence does not demonstrate any proper reflection or demonstrate a genuine understanding of the impact of his actions on others, and the profession. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight does not appear to have developed from when the concerns were first investigated by the Trust in 2018, and in its view remains limited.

109. [redacted]

110. In finding limited insight, the Panel also factored in the Registrant’s failure to fully engage with the regulatory process, in that he had failed to attend the hearing. Furthermore, the Registrant has not provided any evidence of whether he is currently working in paid or unpaid employment. Overall, the Panel found no independent evidence of remediation.

111. The Panel considered whether the misconduct was likely to be repeated by the Registrant. The Panel took into account all it had read and heard about the misconduct. The facts found in relation to the sexual and dishonest conduct show that the Registrant had conducted a pattern of behaviour, across a period of time, against multiple, female patients. Given its finding that the Registrant has shown only limited insight and has not remediated, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains high. The Panel found that given the limited insight, there remains a potential for the Registrant to behave in a sexual and dishonest manner again if he found himself in a similar position, which in turn could have a detrimental impact on the safety and well-being of patients.

112. In relation to the lack of competence, the Panel had no reflections before it from the Registrant about why he had persistently failed to make adequate clinical notes despite the support in place for him at the Trust. Based on the evidence before it, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s insight into his lack of competence is limited. The Registrant has not provided evidence that he has completed any training courses relevant to record keeping in order to remediate his lack of competence. There is no evidence of whether or not he has been in work, and thus no evidence of whether he has been able to demonstrate an improvement in record keeping. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that the risk of repetition in relation to the inadequate record keeping remained.

113. The Panel decided that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the grounds of his misconduct and lack of competence.

114. The Panel next considered whether a finding of current impairment was necessary in the public interest. The Panel was mindful that the public interest encompassed not only public protection but also the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It took into account the guidance in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) at paragraph 74:- ‘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.’

115. The Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant. The Panel considered whether:

a. The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.

b. The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.

c. The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

d. The Registrant has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.

116. In relation to a), the Panel determined that the Registrant had placed patients at unwarranted risk of harm, by acting in the way that he did. The Panel had evidence from Patients A and C about the impact the Registrant’s behaviour had on them, extracts of which are already set out in this decision. He had also placed patients at unwarranted risk of harm by not recording adequate clinical patient notes, which are essential in the healthcare professions for the reasons already set out in this decision.

117. In relation to b), that is the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined he had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as not to bring the profession into disrepute. The role of the HCPC Standards is to set out in general terms how registrants are expected to behave and outline what the public should expect from their health and care professional. In breaching a significant amount of the HCPC Standards, as already set out within this decision, the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute.

118. The Panel then considered c), being whether the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel took into account that it is essential to the effective delivery of podiatry that the public, can trust Podiatrists to act within professional boundaries, to be honest, and to comply with the HCPC Standards which are fundamentally in place to ensure patient safety. In acting as he did, towards multiple patients, the Registrant abused his professional position and failed his patients who has placed their trust in him as a registered professional. The Panel considered that the conduct, as described, demonstrated a serious breach of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

119. The Panel then considered d), being whether the Registrant had acted dishonestly. The Panel found that he had behaved dishonestly, not only in relation to the record keeping of eight patients in relation to the massage, but also in failing to tell the HCPC about the restrictions placed on his by the Trust. Demonstrating, in the Panels view, a continued attitude of concealment.

120. The Panel asked itself, given the nature of the Allegation and the facts found proved, would public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment?

121. Based on its findings in relation to the unwarranted risk of harm, the bringing the profession into disrepute, the breaching of the fundamental tenets of the profession, and the dishonesty, the Panel concluded that public confidence would be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment. The Panel considered that not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the misconduct and lack of competence would seriously undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards.

122. The Panel therefore decided on the public component of impairment that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction

Submissions

123. Ms Danti referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (“the Policy”) (2019). She submitted that the HCPC remain neutral on sanction.

124. Ms Danti submitted that there are no mitigating factors in this case.

125. In relation to aggravating factors Ms Danti drew the Panel to its decision to date wherein it has found:

• A breach of trust as the Registrant had abused his professional position and failed his patients who have placed their trust in him as a registered professional.

• Repetition in relation to the sexual and dishonest conduct show that the Registrant had conducted a pattern of behaviour, across a period of time, against multiple female patients.

• Lack of insight in that the Registrant’s evidence provided to support the admissions was superficial and that the Registrant’s response does not engage with the full weight of what was alleged against him and which he ultimately admitted. Furthermore, the Registrant’s insight does not appear to have developed from when the concerns were first investigated by the Trust in 2018 and in the Panel’s view remains limited.

• In relation to lack of competence in respect of record keeping, the Panel found based on the evidence before it that the Registrant’s insight into his lack of competence was limited.

• In relation to remediation, the Panel had no independent evidence that the Registrant had completed courses on professional boundaries nor the content of the training to assess its relevance in terms of the factual findings. The Registrant had provided no reflective pieces to address his actions, particularly the sexual and dishonest elements. He has undertaken no remediation in relation to record keeping.

• The Registrant had placed patients at unwarranted risk of harm by acting in the way that he did.

126. Ms Danti submitted that dishonesty and sexual misconduct are both considered as serious matters and are highlighted within the Policy.

127. Ms Danti submitted that the dishonesty occurred on multiple occasions, that the dishonesty spanned a considerable period of time. Whilst the dishonesty involved omissions, the Registrant took an active role in deciding not to disclose the numerous massages within the records and the restrictions imposed on his practice. Further, his earlier statement as part of the Trust investigation did not include an early admission to the dishonesty. Indeed, the Registrant’s admission to the dishonesty only came years after these concerns came to light.

128. Ms Danti submitted that the sexual misconduct represented a very serious departure from the Standards and was a pattern of behaviour, and that it was repeated in relation to eight patients, two of whom were touched on their thighs and buttocks.

129. Ms Danti addressed the Panel on each of the sanctions in turn, highlighting the serious nature of the findings which involved dishonesty and sexual misconduct. Ms Danti also submitted that the Panel has found only limited insight from the Registrant and a high risk of the issues repeating.

Legal Advice

130. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred it to the Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system and declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its primary function at this stage is to protect the public, while deciding what, if any, sanction is proportionate, taking into account the wider public interest and the interests of the Registrant. In respect of the Panel’s findings at grounds and impairment, the Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs on seriousness, including dishonesty and sexual misconduct, which start on page 16 of the Policy.

Panel Decision

131. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.

132. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The Registrant had abused his professional position and failed his patients who had placed their trust in him as a registered professional.

• The sexual and dishonest conduct show that the Registrant had conducted a pattern of behaviour, across a period of time, against multiple female patients. It was persistent and repeated, until such time that Patient A raised her concerns and the Trust commenced an investigation.

• The Registrant only has limited insight and his statement, provided to the Panel within the bundle, does not engage with the full weight of what was alleged against him and which he ultimately admitted.

• There is no independent evidence of the Registrant having completed any remediation. The Registrant had provided no reflective pieces to address his actions particularly the sexual and dishonest elements.

• There was direct harm to Patients A and C as a result of the sexual misconduct. They both describe being made to feel uncomfortable by the Registrant’s actions.

• The Registrant placed patients at unwarranted risk of harm by not recording adequate clinical patient notes, which are essential in healthcare to ensure patient safety.

• In respect of lack of competence, the Registrant has minimal insight and has not remediated. This lack of competence occurred despite the Trust providing support, training, and guidance over a three-year period.

133. The Panel did not identify any mitigating factors.

134. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It took into account that the final sanction should be a proportionate approach and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public.

135. Due to the serious nature of the misconduct found in this case (a pattern of sexual and dishonest conduct) together with the lack of competence in relation to the record keeping which had persisted over a number of years, the Panel considered that neither mediation nor taking no further action would be appropriate.

136. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would be appropriate. The Panel considered that a Caution Order would not be in accordance with the 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.’ The Registrant’s misconduct was not isolated, it was not limited, nor was it relatively minor in nature. It involved repeated sexual and dishonest conduct, over a twelve-month period, relating to multiple incidents with multiple patients. It also involved the Registrant not informing the HCPC about the restrictions placed on him by the Trust which showed a continued attitude of concealment.

137. The Policy also states that a Caution Order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which there is: ‘a low risk of repetition; the registrant has shown good insight, and the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation’. The Panel considered its earlier decision on impairment and kept in mind it had not found a low risk of repetition, it had not found the Registrant to have good insight, nor did it find that he had remediated. In the circumstances the Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct together with the lack of competence was too serious for a Caution Order, and such a disposal would be contrary to the Policy.

138. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel took into account the Policy which states that:

‘Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious or persistent failings.
Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving:

• Dishonesty

• Sexual misconduct

• Abuse of professional position.’

139. The Panel found that the Registrant has not shown insight and that he has not fully engaged in the fitness to practise hearing process. Further, he has had serious misconduct findings made against him by the Panel, including repeated and persistent sexual and dishonest conduct involving eight female patients. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct was not minor, rather that it was particularly serious given the impact it had on the patients.

140. The Panel kept in mind its decision on impairment, and that it found that there is a risk that the sexual and dishonest conduct will be repeated given the lack of insight and remediation. Furthermore, that it had found the inadequate record keeping was also likely to be repeated given the length of time the issues had persisted despite support, training and guidance from the Trust. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to address and safeguard members of the public from the risks of the Registrant’s misconduct and lack of competence.

141. The Panel kept in mind that conditions must also be workable and reasonable, and given the serious risk posed to the public, and the attitudinal nature of the conduct, the Registrant would need to be supervised at all times. This would not be workable and would be tantamount to a suspension.

142. Taking all the above factors into account the Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate.

143. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states:

‘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.’

144. The Panel was mindful that it had found that the facts proved represent a serious breach of multiple HCPC Standards. It had found only limited insight from the Registrant in relation to his misconduct and lack of competence. It had also found that there is a high risk of repetition of the serious sexual and dishonest conduct.

145. The Panel had regard to whether it had any evidence before it to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings. The Panel took into account its earlier finding that due to the apparent attitudinal issues, it would be extremely difficult for the Registrant to adequately remediate the misconduct. It had also found that in terms of any insight, the written information from the Registrant does not seem to have developed from the time of the Trust’s investigation in 2018, which was now 7 years ago. Furthermore, the Registrant has not undertaken sufficient remediation such as to reduce the risk of repetition. The Panel considered that all these factors together indicate that the Registrant is unlikely to be able to resolve or remedy his attitudinal failings.

146. The Panel reminded itself, as per paragraphs 76 – 77 of the Policy, that ‘sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession.’ The Panel found the sexual misconduct in this case was very serious as the conduct persisted with multiple incidences with multiple patients across a twelve-month period, and for 2 patients involved inappropriate touching of their thighs and buttocks.

147. The Panel took into account that dishonesty is also serious and as stated at paragraph 56 of the Policy:

‘Dishonesty undermines public confidence in the profession and can, in some cases, impact the public’s safety.
Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety. It is likely to lead to more serious sanctions.’

148. In this case, the Registrant was dishonest in deliberately concealing the massage. He knowingly and persistently omitted it from the patient records. It was not a single act of dishonesty; it was repeated many times. The dishonesty was further compounded by failing to inform the HCPC that he had been placed on restrictions by the Trust. This showed a continued attitude of concealment.

149. The Panel took into account that Podiatrists hold positions of trust, and the role often requires them to engage with vulnerable people, who are seeking support and treatment. Breaches of professional boundaries, and persistent dishonesty, such as the facts found in this case, risk seriously undermining the public trust and confidence in Podiatrists. Within healthcare, honesty and integrity are vital for the health and safety of patients. The Registrant’s actions were completely contrary to this, and he caused harm to patients as a result.

150. The Panel considered that the misconduct in this case was of such a serious nature that the requirements of public protection and the wider public interest would not be adequately served by imposing a Suspension Order.

151. The Panel, having decided a Suspension Order did not protect the public nor meet the wider public interest, decided that the proportionate order was a Striking Off Order.

152. The Panel took into account the Policy and noted that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those categories of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public and the wider public interest. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s case falls into this category because of the serious, persistent and deliberate nature of the sexual and dishonest conduct towards patients, in which the Registrant showed a disregard for the impact on patients and placed them at risk of harm. These factors combined with the Registrant’s lack of insight, the high risk of repetition and the apparent unwillingness to remediate matters led the Panel to conclude that any lesser sanction would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would be insufficient to protect the public.

153. The Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a Striking Off Order may have upon the Registrant but concluded that these considerations are significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to public protection and the wider public interest.

154. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Dermot Hynan from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

Submissions

155. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant has been subject to an Interim Conditions of Practice Order, but this will automatically expire now that the Panel has imposed a final sanction.

156. Ms Danti submitted that the Panel should use its powers under Article 31 to impose an Interim Suspension Order. She submitted that this is necessary to cover the appeal period, in light of the findings made by the Panel with regard to public protection.

157. Ms Danti submitted that the Registrant has been notified of the application for an Interim Order. She referred the Panel to the Notice of Hearing letter dated 19 June 2025 which sets out the relevant information.

158. Ms Danti submitted that the Panel should proceed in the absence of the Registrant for the same reasons as were submitted at the outset of the hearing.

159. Ms Danti submitted that an Interim Order would safeguard the public and the wider public interest.

160. Ms Danti submitted that having made substantive findings, the Panel has a basis for an Interim Order. She submitted that an Interim Order is necessary for public protection and that it is otherwise in the public interest.

161. Ms Danti submitted that the Interim Suspension Order should be made for eighteen months to cover the appeal period.

Legal Advice

162. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor to consider whether an Interim Order is necessary under Article 31, to protect the public or in the public interest or the Registrant’s own interest, because of the nature of the findings made in this case. The Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC Sanctions Policy which states: ‘An interim order is likely to be required in cases where: … the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’ The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel to take into account the HCPTS guidance note entitled ‘Interim orders’.

Panel Decision

163. The Panel took into account that the Notice of Hearing letter sent to the Registrant on 19 June 2025, informed him of the Panel’s powers to proceed in his absence and to make an Interim Order. Therefore, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been given notice of the application for an Interim Order and had been given an opportunity to attend in accordance with Article 31 (15).

164. The Panel considered that the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest weighed heavily in favour of the application for an Interim Order proceeding in the Registrant’s absence, particularly given its finding that the Registrant is impaired on both components. The Panel could see no reason to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the Registrant to participate on a later date because there was no indication that he would do so. The Panel took into account the fact that it had identified there to be a continuing risk to the public if the Registrant were allowed to practise without restriction and decided it was clearly in the public interest to consider whether to make an Interim Order today, even if that meant it was conducted in the absence of the Registrant.

165. The Panel therefore decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed with the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence.

166. The Panel made an Interim 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. The Panel considered that the Interim Order is necessary in light of the risks to the public and the wider public interest identified in the substantive decision, most significantly, the ongoing risk of the sexual and dishonest misconduct. For the same reasons as those given in the substantive decision, the Panel did not consider that interim Conditions of Practice would be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed.

167. The Panel considered that an 18-month Interim Suspension Order was appropriate and proportionate given the length an appeal may take to be decided by the High Court, if an appeal is made.

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.

 

History of Hearings for Dermot Hynan

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
08/12/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off