Jeanette S Clewes

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a Service Bundle of papers, from which it noted that a Notice of Hearing dated 17 October 2025 had been served on the Registrant by email at her registered email address at 11:39 AM that day. The Panel was also provided with confirmation from Microsoft Outlook timed at 11:39 AM that delivery of the email was “complete” The HCPC also provided a certificate demonstrating the Registrant’s registered status and her registered email address.

2. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”). He also referred the Committee to the HCPTS’ Practice Note, Service of Documents.

3. The Panel noted that the obligation upon the HCPC in serving the Notice was to send notice to the Registrant, at her registered address. The Panel was satisfied that proper notice of at least 28 days had been provided to the Registrant and that service had been effected in accordance with the Rules. In any event, the Panel noted that the Registrant had acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Hearing in her letter to the HCPC dated 30 October 2025.

Proceeding in Absence

4. The Panel then moved on to consider proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. It noted the HCPC’s written Case Summary and Ms Bass’s oral submissions.

5. The Case Summary stated:

“2. The HCPC will apply for the hearing proceed in the absence of the registrant.

3. In an email dated 13 October 2025 the registrant confirmed that she would not be able to attend on 17 December because she had a healthcare appointment on that date and she also felt reluctant to participate as she has no professional support.

4. In her written submission, the registrant explains that she does not wish to attend the final hearing and will not be represented.

5. The HCPC will argue that this is a voluntary waiver of her right to attend and invite the Panel to proceed in her absence pursuant to Rule 11 HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003:

“Where the registrant is neither present nor represented at a hearing, the Committee may nevertheless proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of the hearing under rule 6(1) on the registrant”.

6. Further submissions will be made orally at the hearing.”

6. Ms Bass stated that the Registrant had stated in her letter to the HCPC, dated 30 October 2025, that she did not wish to attend today's hearing. The Panel noted that the Registrant had indicated the following:

“Final Conduct and Competence Committee Hearing to take place for three days on 15 - 17 December 2025.

I do not wish to attend this hearing and have no professional support and will not be represented at the hearing. I have presented evidence at previous hearings to support my claim and would like to re submit my letter dated 18 July, 2025.”

7. Otherwise, Ms Bass relied upon her written Case Summary

8. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and “Interim Orders”.

9. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit any written representations or seek an adjournment. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant had not sought an adjournment or raised any objection to the hearing proceeding in her absence – indeed, she had clearly stated that she did “not wish to attend” and that she was relying upon written submissions.

10. The Panel was aware of the need to proceed expeditiously where it is appropriate to do so. The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding, especially since the incident that gave rise to the Allegation arose some 2½ years ago. It concluded that, particularly in light of her letter dated 30 October 2025, the Registrant unequivocally had voluntarily absented herself.

11. In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant as it concluded that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment as it would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance.

Amendment of the Allegation

12. After the Allegation had been read out and Ms Bass had opened the HCPC's case, the Panel realised that, in the paperwork before it, although the Allegation alleged Misconduct, there was no subsequent allegation that the Registrant was impaired because of that Misconduct.

13. After taking instructions, Ms Bass confirmed that a typographical error had been made in transposing the Allegation formulated by the Investigation Committee Panel (“ICP”) into the notice of hearing and also the hearing bundle. The ICP had determined that the appropriate Allegation should contain a fourth paragraph which read “By reason of the above matters, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.”

14. Ms Bass therefore applied to amend the Allegation by including that fourth paragraph. She submitted that no prejudice resulted to the Registrant because she had been informed of the ICP decision made on 1 July 2025 so she would have been aware of the correct wording of the Allegation. Moreover, in her e-mail dated 3 October 2025, the Registrant had acknowledged that “I note that the panel will be considering whether my fitness to practice is impaired” and she had, both in her email of 3 October and her letter of 30 October 2025, addressed the issue of impairment. Finally, Ms Bass maintained that amending the Allegation to include what was originally there but which had been omitted because of a typographical error, did not widen the seriousness or scope of the Allegation and therefore no prejudice to the Registrant ensued.

15. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. He indicated that the Panel would be entitled to grant the application for an amendment if it found that the amendment was relevant and that no prejudice would result to the Registrant.

16. The Panel decided to allow the application to amend the Allegation. The Panel appreciated that it was necessary to consider an amendment to the allegation since the particulars of the Allegation had been read out and Ms Bass had opened the HCPC's case. The Panel considered that the amendment was relevant since it repeated what the ICP had already considered was the appropriate Allegation. Furthermore, the Panel considered that no prejudice to the Registrant would result from the amendment since, even though she was unaware of the application, it sought to restore a missing paragraph to the allegation that had been sent to the Registrant following the ICP hearing on 1 July 2025. Moreover, the Registrant had already addressed the issue of impairment in her subsequent written submissions. The Panel therefore allowed the amendment to the Allegation so that it included an additional paragraph, paragraph 4, which read “By reason of the above matters, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct”.

Application to admit hearsay evidence

17. Ms Bass made an application, about which the Registrant had been notified in emails from Capsticks in September 2025, to admit hearsay evidence, namely a witness statement from Person A (identified in Particular 1). Ms Bass relied upon part of the HCPC’s Case Summary, as follows:

“C. Application to rely on Hearsay evidence

7. Particulars 1a and 1b rely on the registrant’s admissions as well as a witness statement from Person A (to whom the comments were made) which was provided to the Employment Tribunal (ET) dated 5 April 2023 (Pages 33-35).

8. Person A is [not] attending the final hearing.

Legal position as regards the admissibility of hearsay evidence

9. For the purposes of civil proceedings, “a statement made, otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated”. Hearsay evidence is generally admissible in civil proceedings but can be excluded from consideration by the court.

10. The HCPC Fitness to Practise Rules do not specifically refer to hearsay evidence, but provide at Rule 10(1)(b) & (c) :

(b) subject to sub-paragraph (c) the rules on the admissibility of evidence that apply in civil proceedings in the appropriate court in that part of the United Kingdom in which the hearing takes place shall apply;

(c) the Committee may hear or receive evidence which would not be admissible in such proceedings if it is satisfied that admission of that evidence is necessary in order to protect members of the public. The Panel must however consider the issue of fairness before admitting the evidence.

Case Law

11. The courts have emphasised the importance of considering whether it is fair in all the circumstances to admit hearsay evidence, particularly in circumstances where such evidence is the sole or decisive evidence in relation to an allegation. In the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council, Mr Andrew Thomas QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) commented that “all such cases are fact-sensitive and the test is the requirement of fairness”.

12. The Practice Note entitled ‘Evidence’ suggests the factors, derived from Thorneycroft, that should be taken into account:

a. the nature of the material or witness statement which is the subject of the application and the circumstances in which the document or witness statement were produced

b. whether the statement or document is the sole or decisive evidence in support of the allegation

c. the nature and extent of the challenge to the contents of the document or statement

d. whether there is any suggestion that a witness had reasons to fabricate the evidence

e. the seriousness of the allegation and the impact the admission of the evidence may have on the registrant and the overall fairness of the proceedings

f. the reason for the non-attendance of the maker of the statement

g. whether the HCPC has taken all reasonable steps to secure the attendance of the witness.

13. In White v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWCA 520 (Admin), the decision to admit the hearsay evidence was criticised as the anonymity of the witnesses prevented the appellant from advancing any informed reason why the informant might be critical of her attitude and conduct. This was particularly important as the registrant was not able to test the evidence by way of cross-examination.

14. In R (on the application of SS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391, the Court of Appeal noted that a court’s inability to assess the demeanour of a witness was no longer regarded as a matter which would necessarily put the court at a disadvantage, because “it has increasingly been recognised that it is usually unreliable and often dangerous to draw a conclusion from a witness’s demeanour as to the likelihood that the witness is telling the truth”. The Court determined that the only objective and reliable approach to determining whether testimony is truthful is to focus on the content of the testimony and to consider whether it is consistent with other evidence (including evidence of what the witness has said on other occasions) and with known or probable facts.

Whether Person A’s evidence should be admitted as hearsay

15. Person A is anonymised in the papers for your ease of reference, because they appear in the allegation as Person A. Their name is known to the Registrant and can be provided to the Panel, so they are not anonymous in the sense described in White.

16. The registrant has chosen not to attend the final hearing and so would not have the opportunity to cross-examine them even if Person A did attend. The Panel will be aware that they should never the less [sic] consider any impact of Person A not being available for Panel questions because when a Panel proceed in the absence of a registrant the Panel may ask questions of the witness, including any questions relating to a registrant’s version of events, as far as the Panel understands it. The HCPC argue that there is little, if any, negative impact in Person A not being available for questions in circumstances where the evidence they give is not disputed, in that the registrant admits saying the comments. In the event the relevant account is admitted as hearsay, the Panel will be required to consider carefully what weight (if any) they can give to that account once all of the evidence has been presented.

17. In considering whether it is fair in all the circumstances to seek the admission of Person A’s account as hearsay for the purposes of these proceedings, the HCPC has taken into account that :-

a. the account was obtained as part of an ET and was presented by way of a sworn statement including a declaration of truth.

b. The statement is not the sole or decisive evidence in support of the allegation as it is supported by the registrant’s admissions

c. the registrant does not challenge the statement.

d. there is no evidence of any reason for the witness to fabricate the evidence

e. the allegation is serious, but the impact of the admission of the evidence on the registrant is minimal since the Registrant admits making the comments, therefore the overall fairness of the proceedings is not negatively impacted.

f. the HCPC have not sought to secure Person A’s attendance in circumstances where the Panel may receive hearsay evidence, and the registrant does not dispute the evidence.

18. In light of the matters set out above, the HCPC submit that Person A’s account can be fairly admitted in the circumstances of this case.”

18. Ms Bass made the following oral additions to the written submissions:

19. Ms Bass reminded the Panel that the HCPC had not actually taken a witness statement from Person A and the statement that the HCPC sought to introduce into evidence was the statement that Person A had given to the ET.

20. In relation to paragraph 17b of the Case Summary above, Ms Bass reminded the Panel that the Registrant had made admissions to the ET, to her employer and to the HCPC.

21. In relation to paragraph 17c above, Ms Bass drew the Panel's attention to the exchange of emails between Capsticks and the Registrant. On 9 September 2025, Capsticks wrote to the Registrant enclosing the HCPC's draft bundle for the hearing and asked if she had any objection to any of the HCPC's proposed hearsay applications. On 12 September 2025, the Registrant replied stating that “I do not think that I have any objection [to] the proposed hearsay applications although I am unsure of any implications of this”. Capsticks replied the same day stating that “If you do not object to the hearsay applications that just means that you are happy in principle for the relevant documents to be admitted into evidence in the case, and therefore be considered by the panel at the final hearing - whether or not they are actually admitted into evidence will still be a matter for the panel to decide.” Ms Bass made the point that, in her written submissions on 30 October 2025, the Registrant did not mention anything about the hearsay application, so she invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s position remained the same as it had been on 12 September 2025.

22. The Panel took into account the Legal Assessor’s advice. He referred the Panel to the Practice Note entitled “Evidence” and commended to the Panel the factors derived from the case of Thorneycroft that were set out in paragraph 12 of the Case Summary, which otherwise correctly represented the legal principles relevant to this application. The Legal Assessor indicated that if the Panel agreed with the HCPC that Person A's witness statement was not the sole or decisive evidence in support of the Allegation, then this was a factor that the Panel could conclude argued for admission of the statement. Similarly, the fact that the Registrant did not appear to challenge Person A's statement was also an argument in favour of admission of the statement.

23. The Panel decided to grant the application to admit the statement of Person A into evidence without her being required to attend the hearing. The Panel was somewhat concerned that Person A had not been approached by the HCPC, nor had the HCPC taken any steps to secure the attendance of Person A at the hearing. However, the Panel acknowledged that Person A was the originator of the concerns about the Registrant and therefore was an important witness. Furthermore, the Registrant did not dispute that she made the comments as alleged by Person A and had indicated that she had no objection to the application.

Background

24. Ms Bass relied upon the Case Summary for the background of this matter, as follows:

“19. The Registrant was employed as a Director of Ultrasound / Clinical Lead at Window to the Womb Franchise Limited (“WTTWFL”). Franchisees of WTTWFL trade as Window to the Womb (“WTTW”) and operate private clinics offering scans during pregnancy, including early scans and wellbeing and gender scans.

20. On 6 March 2024, the HCPC received an enquiry from a journalist asking whether the Registrant, “who was found by a judge to have made racist comments in this case has been referred to the regulator?”.(page 12)

21. In the course of its investigation the HCPC has obtained a copy of the Reserved Judgment of the Employment Tribunal dated 23 May 2023.

22. The Judgment makes it clear that the registrant did not have direct involvement in any of the acts complained of by [the Complainant] Person A in the employment matter. However, as joint Clinical Lead for WTTWFL, she had been responsible for reviewing some scans that Person A had undertaken and providing feedback and therefore appeared at the ET hearing. She had no clinical concerns and made no complaint about the standard of A’s work.

23. Within the judgment is set out the comments which the registrant agreed (in cross examination) were made by her in a conversation with an officer of the Society of Radiographers on a Teams video conference call on 3 April 2023 (page 64) and which now appear at Particulars 1a and 1b.

24. The registrant was interviewed by her employer in the course of their investigation, and has engaged with the HCPC investigation. She has consistently admitted making the comments but described them as a one-off incident, which was out of character and therefore not indicative of a deep-seated attitudinal concern, which might impair her fitness to practise.

25. The Registrant has since retired from the profession (Page 126).”

Submissions on Facts

25. Ms Bass confirmed that the HCPC relied entirely on written documentation and did not propose to call any witnesses to give live evidence.

26. In relation to Particulars 1a and 1b, Ms Bass submitted that the Registrant had made numerous admissions about these matters to her employer, the HCPC and the ET as follows:

27. In a statement to her employer dated 8th April 2023, the Registrant said the following:

“I received an email from [Person A] Regional Officer for the Society of Radiographers, on Thursday 30th March, 2023 asking if I would be willing to have an informal chat about a case she was involved with which is totally unconnected to the...Tribunal. I agreed and a meeting on Teams video took place on Monday 3rd April at 10am.

I was initially uncertain if I should participate in this meeting as I knew that it involved employment issues which are out of my role to be involved with but I decided I would be very mindful of my contribution and indeed the meeting was very much [Person A] giving me much information and feedback.

[Person A] told me that she was based in the West Midlands and has often recommended people to attend scans at WTTW and she knew of sonographers who had worked in our clinics.

In response to some of [Person A]’s comments in her dealing with her two cases, I then discussed how in my experience over several years now that the Africans do tend to tell lies and that caution was necessary as I had had repercussions from this. I recalled how I had advised a sonographer to contact the director responsible for expressing a concern several years ago. It transpired that the other side of this story revealed a lot of far more serious issues. I said that it was so important to know both sides of the story. [Person A] agreed with this.

I also did say that the issue of body odour was a real problem and was very prevalent. I said that that it was an issue that has been dealt with by several of our clinic owners and was so important to deal with especially in a private clinic setting.”

28. Ms Bass also referred to the evidence that the Registrant gave to an Employment Tribunal (sitting in Cardiff from 17th to 26th April 2023). That Tribunal gave a reserved written judgement in which it was stated:

“55.There was a particular point that arose regarding comments made by Ms Clewes during a conversation with [Person A], an officer of the Society of Radiographers on a Teams video conference call on 3 April 2023. [Person A] gave evidence (supported by her contemporaneous notes), and Ms Clewes accepted under cross-examination that during this conversation she had made the following statements:

(a) “you have to be careful, these Africans tell lies”;

(b) “these Africans all have hygiene problems, it is a real problem for us to deal with”…

56.Ms Clewes accepted repeatedly under cross-examination that she had said these things. During re-examination, she then (and it is noteworthy that there had been a break in the interim) attempted to assert that she was not talking about all Africans, but two specific Africans who were the reason for [Person A]…call. Ms Clewes wholly undermined this assertion when she then said, in response to a question of clarification from the Tribunal, that the story she had just told about why she regarded her “fingers had been bitten” and had caused her to make such comments in fact related to a wholly different African individual (in other words, not the Claimant or the two Africans represented by [Person A]). The Tribunal found that Ms Clewes made these comments as alleged, and they were in reference to all Black Africans…

57. The repetition of them by Ms Clewes at the final hearing, while honest, was astonishing in the sense that it was apparent to the Tribunal that Ms Clewes could see nothing wrong with these views or her expression of these views. The Tribunal understands that Ms Clewes is a registered regulated sonographer, and it anticipates that this Judgment setting out what Ms Clewes said may well be referred to her regulator to consider to whether such views is compatible with registration. However, the Tribunal reminded itself that Ms Clewes was the joint Clinical Lead for the entire Window to the Womb group; she was not an employee of the First Respondent. The evidence shows that Ms Clewes had no involvement in any of the acts complained of by the Claimant. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Ms Clewes had no clinical concerns and made no complaint in respect of the Claimant.”

29. Ms Bass also referred to an investigation interview that the Registrant had with her employer on 18 May 2023. The record of interview states:

“Discussion of comments:

Q; Let's start with your comments during the Teams call. The tribunal judgement quoted you saying “you have to be careful, these Africans tell lies,” “these Africans all have hygiene problems, it is a real problem for us to deal with.”

A: … I am truly sorry for those comments. They were made in a moment of frustration during a challenging conversation. I realised now how inappropriate and hurtful they were. I deeply regret saying them.

Q: Can you explain what was happening at the time that may have influenced your words?

A: We were discussing various operational issues, and I was feeling overwhelmed. There have been several incidents where communication barriers and different working practises have caused misunderstandings. But I realise now that this does not excuse my comments.

Intent and context:

Q: Did you intend for your comments to be hurtful or directed at any specific individuals?

A: Absolutely not. My intention was never to hurt anyone. I realise now that my words were broad and unfair. They were not directed at any specific person, but I understand that they were offensive and wrong.

Q: What was your understanding of the impact these comments might have had at the time?

A: Honestly, I didn't think about the impact in that moment. I was speaking out of frustration and ignorance. Now, having had time to reflect, I am horrified by the impact my words could have had on my colleagues and the environment we strive to create here.

Remorse and apology:

Q: It's important to understand how you feel about this now. Can you tell me how you felt after realising the impact of your comments?

A: I felt, and still feel, deeply ashamed and upset. I have always tried to support diversity and inclusion in my role, and it devastates me to think that my words have contradicted those values. I want to sincerely apologise to everyone who has been affected by my comments.

Q: Have you taken any steps since this incident to address your understanding and awareness?

A: Yes, I have been reading and learning more about unconscious bias and the importance of culturally sensitive communication. I want to make sure that I never make such a mistake again.

Mitigating factors:

Q: Can you provide any additional context or factors that you believe should be considered in this investigation?

A: I hope it can be recognised that this was an isolated incident. Throughout my career, I have always tried to support my colleagues, especially those from diverse backgrounds. I've been involved in recruiting and supporting over 200 non-British sonographers, and I genuinely care about fostering an inclusive workplace… I am truly sorry for any hurt my words have caused. I am committed to doing better and making amends where possible”.

30. In addition, Ms Bass referred to admissions made to the HCPC in her response to the Allegation dated 18 July 2025, where the Registrant stated:

“…The “informal meeting” I was invited to by Person A involved her giving the information of two cases she was representing on behalf of SoR and did not include discussion of the upcoming tribunal to be held in Cardiff. Whilst I'm sure that Person A would regard her discussion as “friendly advice”, I assessed it to constitute a “threat” to be passed on to named individuals, Franchisees of Window to the Womb. She informed me of the consequences of SoR's possible activity in their conduct of these particular two cases. I have never discussed the comments with those individuals to date. I was so shocked by the amount of information she was giving me about her cases and felt extremely uncomfortable. All of this was totally out of my remit and I decided never to discuss some of the items raised…

…I submit that my conduct at the meeting was affected by being under pressure and compulsion.

I accept that the comments are indicative of racism but I ask you to consider that it was totally out of character, does not reflect my normal views and has never impacted on relations with any work colleagues or patients…
I would like the panel to consider what documented evidence they have presented to support their concern that my conduct in the workplace shows “deep seated racism, attitudinal and behavioural concerns” and evidence as to this single, one-off incident resulting in concerns of my fitness to practise being impaired and a decision of a significant risk of repetition occurring. I have evidenced 12 years of very successful conduct in the performance of my role at WTTW, assisting recruitment, inducting, and mentoring on a very personal level 7 days per week. I have given and received nothing but support and praise… from all staff and am very proud of my achievements at WTTW. There were no complaints of racism, discrimination, unfairness or non-inclusiveness which I believe impacted on the balance of probability of my impairment on fitness to practise. I've always fully upheld the principle of respect for all colleagues and patients… ”

31. In addition, the Panel noted Person A's statement and in particular:

“…7. In the context of my role on behalf of the SoR, I had reason to speak to Jeanette Clewes, the Director of Ultrasound for WTTW. I needed to speak to her regarding the two members I represent, who are employed by franchisees of WTTW. As a result, I arranged to speak to Ms Clewes via a Teams video conference call on Monday 3rd April 2023. During this call with Ms Clewes she discussed the Claimant's case with me. She asked me if I was involved with this case and mentioned to me that she is required to give evidence in the case. I explained that I was aware of the claim but that I was not responsible for the case and that the Claimant was represented by a colleague. I explained I had only limited information about the Claimant’s case. During this conversation Ms Clewes told me some of her thoughts about the Claimant’s claim. She made the following statements to me:

i. Mrs Clewes said "you have to be careful, these Africans tell lies";

ii. Ms Clewes said “these Africans all have hygiene problems, it is a real problem for us to deal with”…

8. I was shocked and surprised when she made these comments and I told her that both my members, who are both black Nigerian nationals, had been entirely truthful with me”.

32. Although not referred to by Ms Bass, the Panel also notes the Registrant’s written submissions dated 30 October 2025, In which she stated:

“I have been very proud of my career as a sonographer and especially of the recognised achievements whist working for Window to the Womb up to October 2024. I felt humbled by the gratitude and respect expressed by my colleagues at over 40 clinics throughout the UK at the end of my working career. I have never received any complaints during my whole career re attitude or symptoms of racism.
I note that the panel at the forthcoming hearing will be considering whether my fitness to practice is impaired. The issues you will take into account are:

* what steps I have taken to address any specific issues identified when the order was made. (1st October, 2024).

* what degree of insight I have shown and whether this has changed.

* what steps have I taken to maintain or improve my professional knowledge and skills.

* whether any fitness to practice issues have arisen. Whether I have complied with the existing order.
Whether I have practised safely and effectively within the terms of the order.
Since registration on 1st February, 2024 my last and only duty of patient facing was on 20th June, 2024 for three hours observing a sonographer. All other duties were in interviewing, assisting appointments and induction and of overseas sonographers to clinics UK wide mostly conducted via zoom.
All duties terminated upon my total retirement on 1st October, 2024. I attended a course on 15th April, 2024 : Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in the workplace (Certificate submitted to HCPC review meeting). I have not attended any mandatory training or kept up to date with professional issues or changes in sonographers practice since retiring as I considered this was no longer necessary or a requirement.
I have been since October 2024 a 72 year old, fully retired, ex radiographer/sonographer now committed to full time caring of my 86 year old husband. I consider that I am no longer fit to practise due to not having kept my skills and knowledge up to date by choice (since retirement) and no longer require professional registration.
I requested removal from the registration prior to 1st February, 2025 and I was then listed as "De registered".”

33. Finally, the Panel noted further written submissions by the Registrant prepared in May 2025. In these submissions she stated that during her time with Window to the Womb Franchise Limited she had inducted 96 Sonographers into positions at clinics throughout the UK. Sonographers had been employed from Jamaica, Nigeria, Uganda, Philippines, India and Pakistan. She therefore had extensive experience of successfully supporting and working with healthcare professionals from countries other than the UK. In addition, she had supported three Doctors from overseas undergoing PhD studies (from 2001 to 2011 during her time as a research Sonographer at the University of Nottingham). She was actively involved in their research which resulted in many publications into ultrasound in reproductive medicine.

34. The Panel confirmed that it had considered all statements from the Registrant in this determination since she was not present at the hearing.

35. In relation to Particular 2, Ms Bass referred to the Case Summary which stated that this was a:

“Matter for the Panel with reference to the Practice Note entitled ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind’:

“conduct will be racially motivated when (i) the act in question…had a purpose behind it which at least in significant part was referable to race and (ii) the act was done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group’.

When considering context the Panel will be invited to consider her evidence to the ET when she said that she was talking about two specific people, but then said that she was referring to a different individual (Page 64) which she later corrected in the notes of interview with her employer which indicate the comments were not made about any specific person and she realises they were broad and unfair (page 27)”

36. Ms Bass drew the attention of the Panel to the contents of the Practice Note referred to above. The Panel noted in particular the following paragraphs:

“1. This practice note provides guidance on how Panels should approach decisions that require findings about a registrant’s state of mind or motivation at the time of alleged conduct. This most commonly arises in relation to alleged dishonesty, sexually motivated conduct and cases in which it is alleged that the registrant’s conduct was racially motivated. The principles of this practice note will apply to any other allegations where state of mind is being alleged.

2. Allegations of dishonesty, racial motivation or sexual motivation must be expressly set out in the allegation if justified on the facts. If the Panel considers that dishonesty, racial motivation or sexual motivation may form part of the case to be considered, and this has not been alleged, the Panel should consider whether there is a risk of under prosecution. If so, the Panel may invite submissions from both parties on amending the allegation.

3. Panels should make findings about what happened before determining the registrant’s state of mind or motivation at the time of the behaviour in question. The findings about what happened will form an important part of the evidence to be examined when determining the registrant’s state of mind or motivation.

Evidence and the standard of proof

4. The question of what a person's state of mind was is a question of fact. Panels must decide questions about a person's state of mind on the usual civil standard of proof (the balance of probabilities).

5. The state of a person’s mind is not something that can be proved by direct observation. A person's state of mind can only be proved by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence…

…Racial motivation

15. The HCPC may allege that a registrant’s conduct is ‘racist’ or ‘racially motivated’. In cases where a panel is considering whether words used are ‘racist’, the intention of the registrant is irrelevant to whether or not the conduct was racist. The panel must simply determine, as a question of objective fact, whether the conduct was or was not racist.

16. If a panel is considering a case in which it is alleged that the registrant’s conduct is ‘racially motivated’, the panel must investigate the context and intention to determine whether or not ‘racial motivation’ is established. In Lambert Simpson v HCPC (2023) EWHC 481 (Admin), the High Court ruled that conduct will be racially motivated when (i) the act in question…had a purpose behind it which at least in significant part was referable to race and (ii) the act was done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group’.

17. In these cases, panels must therefore firstly decide whether the registrant’s alleged words or conduct are proved on the balance of probabilities. If they are, then the panel should consider whether the conduct was racially motivated by applying the approach and test set out in paragraph 16 above.”

37. Ms Bass further submitted that, in relation to the allegation that the comments were “racist”, this was an objective test and that the Panel simply had to determine whether, as a question of objective fact, the comments were or were not racist. Ms Bass maintained that alleging broadly that “Africans” told lies and that “all” of them had hygiene problems was clearly racist as a question of objective fact.

38. In relation to the allegation that the Registrant's comments were “racially motivated”, Ms Bass stated that this was a subjective test and the Panel would need to consider whether the Registrant’s purpose behind the comments was referrable to race and, secondly whether the comments were done in a way which, in this case, showed hostility or a discriminatory attitude to “Africans”. Ms Bass drew the Panel’s attention to various comments made by the Registrant and by Person A. The comment by Person A that she was shocked by the comments supported the contention that they contained an element of racial motivation. In relation to the suggestion that the comments took place in a private meeting between the Registrant and Person A and therefore were not intended for public consumption, Ms Bass drew the Panel's attention to the case of Lambert Simpson v HCPC (2023) EWHC 481 (Admin) which commented upon such a situation and determined that it was appropriate and important that a regulatory and/or supervisory authority should be able to see in this a serious “attitudinal” problem because there was hostility in such behaviour and hostility in the state of mind of the person communicating. Moreover, the High Court concluded by saying: “Attitudes matter. The relevant hostility can thrive in attempted 'humour', as it can in 'ridicule'. The 'private' context may be relevantly – indeed may be especially – revealing.”

Decision on Facts

39. In considering this case the Panel bore in mind that the burden of proving the facts rests upon the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. It has taken account of all the evidence presented to it, namely the documentary evidence provided by the HCPC which included responses by the Registrant. It has also considered the submissions of Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC and has accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1:

As a registered Radiographer…

1. On 3 April 2023 you made one or more inappropriate comments during a meeting with Person A, in that you said:

a. “You have to be careful, these Africans tell lies” or words to that effect;

b. These Africans all have hygiene problems, it is a real problem for us to deal with” or words to that effect.”

Found Proved

40. The Panel first of all considered whether the HCPC had proved, on the balance of probabilities, the matters outlined in Particular 1. Although there were no formal admissions by the Registrant, the Panel noted the numerous admissions made by the Registrant throughout the history of this matter that she said the words alleged in sub paragraphs a and b. Furthermore, there is also abundant evidence that the comments were made during a Teams meeting with Person A on 3 April 2023. Finally, the Panel also concluded that the comments were “inappropriate” since they were derogatory of a racial group, namely Africans.

41. The Panel therefore found Particular 1 proved in its totality.

Particular 2

Your conduct at particulars 1a and/or 1b above was racist and/or racially motivated.

Found Proved

42. The Panel first considered whether the comments at Particulars 1a and 1b were racist. The Panel noted the guidance set out in the Practice Note entitled “Making decisions on a Registrant's state of mind” and noted that it had to determine, as a question of objective fact, whether the conduct was, or was not, racist. The Panel had little hesitation in finding that the comments were racist since they were derogatory of a racial group, namely Africans, in that they stated that they were dishonest and that “all” of them had hygiene problems.

43. The Panel then moved on to consider whether the comments were racially motivated. It noted the test in Lambert Simpson v HCPC, which was that the conduct would be racially motivated when (i) the act in question had a purpose behind it which at least in significant part was referrable to race and (ii) was done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group.

44. The Panel noted that, in the investigation interview on 18 May 2023, the Registrant stated that the comments were made in a moment of frustration during a challenging conversation; that she was feeling overwhelmed; but that she now realised that her words were broad and unfair and were not directed to any specific person. She had not thought about the impact of those comments at the time but was speaking out under pressure and compulsion. She indicated that having reflected on the matter she felt deeply ashamed and upset.

45. In the Registrant’s Response to the Notice of Allegation she said that she accepted that the comments were indicative of racism, but they were totally out of character. The Panel also noted that in the ET, the Registrant was reported as saying that she was not talking about all Africans but about the two specific Africans who were the subject of the discussion with Person A, but then she claimed that she was in fact referring to a wholly different African individual, which discrepancy apparently caused the ET to find that the comments were in reference “to all Black Africans”. The Panel appreciates that it is not bound by such a finding by the ET but, nonetheless, taken together with her subsequent acceptance that her comments were broad and unfair and not directed to any specific person, at the very least there seems to have been significant confusion in the Registrant’s mind at that time about her motivations.

46. What the Panel could not understand, however, was why, if the comments were about one or two specific individuals, the Registrant did simply not refer to them by name but instead use the collective term “Africans”. The Panel considered that, if the Registrant was not intending to refer to their race, she would not have used such a collective noun. The Panel therefore was led to the conclusion that the Registrant’s comments had a purpose behind them which, in significant part, was clearly referable to race.

47. In relation to the second part of the test, namely whether the act was done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group, the Panel repeats its arguments in relation to the first part of the test as set out above. Having found that there was a significant purpose behind the comments which were in reference to race, the Panel can think of no other reason why those comments were made other than to demonstrate hostility or a discriminatory attitude. The fact that the Registrant was under some pressure at the time does not excuse the comments. Moreover, the Panel considered that it was significant that these comments were made during a private conversation which, as the High Court observed in the case of Lambert Simpson v HCPC could be “especially revealing” of a person’s true intentions. Furthermore, the suggestion that Africans told lies and that they all had hygiene problems indicated, in the Panel’s mind, that the most likely motive for saying these things were either hostile or discriminatory, or both, especially as the comments were made in a professional context.

48. Taking all these matters into account, the Panel considered that, on balance, the HCPC has proved that the Registrant's comments were racially motivated at the time.

Decision on Grounds

49. Having found all the facts proved against the Registrant in this matter, the Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved, individually or collectively, amounted to the statutory ground of Misconduct.

50. In relation to Misconduct, the Panel noted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the cases of Roylance v General Medical Council [2000] 1 A.C. 311, Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin), Nandi v. General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317, Spencer v General Osteopathic Council [2012] EWHC 3147 (Admin) and R v. Nursing and Midwifery Council (ex parte Johnson and Maggs) (No 2) [2013] EWHC 2140 (Admin). The Panel noted that misconduct must be serious and amount to a registrant’s conduct falling far below the standards expected of a registered Radiographer in such a way that fellow practitioners would find her behaviour “deplorable”. It has also borne in mind that this is an objective test and that mitigation plays no part at this stage of the proceedings.

51. The Panel noted the written submissions of Ms Bass, as set out in the Case Summary:

“G. Registrant’s Position

27. The Registrant has maintained that she did make the comments at Particulars 1a and 2b but, given their proper context, they do not indicate an impairment of her fitness to practise. The context being that the comments were made in a private meeting without any harmful intention, she had an otherwise unblemished career and upon realising the upset the comments had made she immediately apologised and underwent diversity and inclusion training.

H. Statutory ground

28. Whether the proven facts amount to the statutory ground of the allegation is a matter of judgement for the Panel and the HCPC does not propose to present any separate evidence on this point.

29. However, the HCPC will argue that if the conduct alleged in any or all of the particulars are found proved, this established that the Registrant acted in such a way which fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect.

30. It will be submitted that the Registrant has breached the following standards set out in the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics (2016):

1.5 You must not discriminate against service users, carers or colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships or the care, treatment or other service that you provide.

31. And the following standards of proficiency for Radiographers [pre-September 2023):

5. “Be aware of the impact of culture, equality, and diversity on Practice”]

52. In addition, the Panel noted that Ms Bass elaborated in oral submissions that, as an indicator of what the public might think about the Registrant’s behaviour, Person A, a fellow professional, had indicated that she was shocked by the Registrant’s comments, and the Tribunal Judge at the ET, who the Panel considers should be regarded in any event as a member of the public, found the Registrant’s comments “honest but astonishing” and even suggested that the matter should be considered by her regulator. Ms Bass asked the Panel to extrapolate from these two reactions to her behaviour the conclusion that it was deplorable and fell far below the standards expected.

53. In addition, Ms Bass said that racism/racist comments were in any event unacceptable and that the Registrant had departed from good professional practice.

54. The Panel also took account of the Registrant’s evidence, although she does not appear to have addressed this particular issue in her documentation. She has however, ultimately not sought to downplay the seriousness of her comments.

55. The Panel agrees with the Standards identified by Ms Bass as having been breached. However, the Panel reminds itself that a mere breach of standards does not, in itself, amount to misconduct.

56. The Panel was satisfied that all the matters found proved amount to Misconduct. Making racist comments with racial motivation clearly is unacceptable in a professional and rightly would be regarded as “deplorable” by fellow professional and the public. It accepts Ms Bass’ submissions and in particular notes that the matters found proved are, under the umbrella term of “Discrimination”. considered as serious in the Sanctions Policy.

57. Accordingly, the Panel is drawn to the inevitable conclusion that the Registrant’s actions were, both individually and collectively, serious and that her conduct fell far below the standards expected of a registered Radiographer and therefore amount to Misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

58. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel has taken account of the submissions of Ms Bass and the advice of the Legal Assessor. It has also taken account of the HCPC Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.

59. The Panel is aware that, in determining whether fitness to practise is impaired, it must take account of a range of issues which, in essence, comprise two components, namely the ‘personal’ component (the current competence and behaviour of the individual Registrant) and the ‘public’ component (the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession). It appreciates that not every finding of misconduct will automatically result in a Panel concluding that fitness to practice is impaired. Moreover, it cannot adopt a simplistic view and conclude that fitness to practise is not impaired simply on the basis that, since the allegation arose, a Registrant has corrected matters or “learned their lesson”. Although the Panel’s task is not to punish past wrongdoings, it does need to take account of past acts or omissions in determining whether a Registrant’s present fitness to practise is impaired. In addition, when assessing the likelihood of a Registrant causing similar harm in the future, the Panel should take account of both the degree of harm, if any, caused by a Registrant and that Registrant’s culpability for that harm. Finally, the Panel is to consider whether a Registrant has demonstrated insight into their attitude and failings.

60. The Panel noted Ms Bass’ submissions contained in the Case Summary:

“I. Impairment

32. Whether the proven facts amount to impairment of fitness to practise is also a matter of judgement for the Panel and the HCPC does not propose to present any separate evidence on this point.

33. The HCPC will invite the Panel to have regard to the Practice Note entitled ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and will argue that the registrant’s behaviour falls far below that expected of a registered healthcare professional. If the facts are proven the HCPC will argue that there is a risk of repetition meaning the registrant is impaired on the personal component, and that the allegations are so serious that finding that the Registrant’s behaviour does not amount to impairment would undermine confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, meaning she is also impaired on the public component.”

61. Ms Bass added oral submissions as follows: she submitted that, applying the test in the case of CHRE v NMC (ex parte Grant) the Registrant had brought the profession into disrepute and had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. She reminded the Panel that it had to look forward and decide whether the Registrant was currently impaired.

62. Ms Bass submitted that, when looking at the personal component, the Panel was to consider whether there was still any risk to the public. She accepted that the Registrant made the comments at a time when she was not patient-facing, but Ms Bass reminded the Panel that the public included not only service users but colleagues and other members of the public.

63. Ms Bass commented upon what the Registrant maintained were features of insight, namely that what she had done should be regarded
as a one-off incident; that there was no evidence that her comments impacted upon patients or colleagues; and that what she had said was not indicative of any attitudinal behaviour. However, Ms Bass maintained that the comments of the High Court in the case of Lambert Simpson v HCPC regarding views expressed in private were relevant on this issue. The description of the Registrant’s comments by the Registrant and by Person A indicated that the Registrant had held negative views of a particular race and that these had developed over a number of years, notwithstanding that there was no previous complaint of this nature. Ms Bass suggested that at some stage the Registrant perhaps realised that what she had done was unacceptable and was searching for some justification. Ms Bass argued that the Registrant had perceived views of Africans and such could negatively impact patients and colleagues particularly since she would be inclined to make assumptions about Africans being, for instance, dishonest and unhygienic.

64. Ms Bass drew the Panel's attention to the test for remediation laid out in the case of Cohen, namely whether the Registrant’s misconduct was easily remediable, whether it had been remedied; and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated. She asked the Panel to note that the Registrant had engaged with the process, and this was to her credit. The Registrant had now retired and had given evidence at the ET, so it was perfectly reasonable that she did not want to attend this particular hearing. Ms Bass reminded the Panel that the Registrant’s non-attendance should not be held against her.

65. Furthermore, Ms Bass confirmed that the Registrant had a long unblemished history and had demonstrated some remorse. She had reflected on the possibility of her being culturally biased and she had attended a course on Discussing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Workplace in April 2024. However, her attendance at this course was to be treated with some caution because it appeared that the Registrant had been asked to attend it and did not “seek it out”. In addition, even though the Registrant had confirmed that she had retired from practice, she could change her mind and return to the profession.

66. In conclusion, Ms Bass maintained that the evidence supported a finding that the Registrant had an attitudinal problem; did not have insight (supporting people from overseas did not mean that she was not racist); and consequently, there was a risk of repetition, a finding of impairment both on the personal and public interest components was required.

67. In answer to a question from the Panel, regarding the Registrant’s comment that she considered that she was impaired because she had retired from practice now for over a year, Ms Bass Indicated that the matter before the Panel was one of conduct, not competence or concerns about her clinical skills. The latter could be addressed by retraining and should not be considered by the Panel.

68. The Panel first of all considered the personal component. It noted that the Registrant has engaged with the HCPC although she had not attended the final hearing. The Panel confirms that it has not held her non-attendance against her, although it has meant that the Panel has been unable fully to explore the level of any remediation and apology that the Registrant has undertaken. It also noted that, prior to this hearing, the Registrant had expressed some remorse, which the Panel considers potentially demonstrates some level of insight into her misconduct. The Panel agrees with Ms Bass that the Registrant’s attendance on the course in July 2024, although on the face of it creditable, is somewhat diminished by the fact that she was asked to attend it and did not, apparently, make any individual effort to identify such a course. Furthermore, the Panel notes that she attended this course over a year after the incident in March 2023, at a time when she was approaching retirement later in the year. The Panel considers that, if a person genuinely was concerned about their conduct, it would be expected that they would address their wrongdoing rather more quickly. Moreover, there is no input from the Registrant as to what she has learned from such a course and how it affected her views on race.

69. The Panel also notes that, although the Registrant indicated in her interview with her employer in March 2023 that she had been reading and learning more about unconscious bias and the importance of culturally sensitive communication, the Panel has not been provided with any evidence of reflection on what she has learned in relation to these subjects.

70. Furthermore, although the Registrant has expressed remorse and has apologised generally, there is no evidence that she made any attempts to apologise personally to the claimant in the ET proceedings nor to Person A. The Panel appreciates, however, that there may have been difficulties in arranging such.

71. In conclusion, therefore, the Panel finds that the Registrant is impaired on a Personal basis mainly because of a lack of insight and limited remediation. The Panel appreciates that insight requires the Registrant to (i) understand what went wrong; (ii) appreciate that she should have acted differently; and (iii) understand how she can act in the future to ensure that what she did does not happen again. However, the Panel notes that the Registrant has not given any explanation why she said what she said and therefore is drawn to the conclusion that she is unable to understand what went wrong or how she should have acted differently. This, in turn, affects the question of whether she can act in the future to ensure that what she did does not happen again and also gives credence to Ms Bass’s submission that the Registrant has an attitudinal problem. Consequently, the Panel considers that there remains a significant risk of repetition of the Registrant’s behaviour.

72. In relation to the public component, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct, especially as it remains un-remediated, was such that the need to declare and uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were also not made in these circumstances. The Panel believes that a right-minded member of the public, with full knowledge of all of the circumstances, would be concerned if a finding of current impairment were not made.

Sanction

73. In reaching its decision on sanction the Panel took account of all the documentary evidence it had received; the submissions of Ms Bass; the Sanctions Policy (“SP”) document; and the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it accepted. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, although they may have that effect. It appreciated that the primary purpose of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which the registrant concerned may pose to those who use or need their services. It noted, however, that in reaching its decision, panels must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes: protection of the public; the deterrent effect to other registrants; the reputation of the profession concerned; public confidence in the regulatory process; and ensuring that professional standards are upheld. In addition, the Panel noted that it must act proportionately, which requires it to strike a balance between the interests of the public and those of the Registrant.

74. The Panel reminded itself regarding its assessment of the facts found proved for the purposes of establishing Misconduct and that it had found impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise on both personal and public interest grounds.
Submissions

75. Ms Bass confirmed that it was not the practice of the HCPC to make a “sanctions bid”. She referred the Panel to the SP and submitted that the case should be categorised as serious, as detailed in paragraph 63 of the SP, which stated:

“Discrimination

63. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone because they have, or are perceived to have, a protected characteristic, or are associated with someone who has a protected characteristic. Those characteristics are…race…”

The Panel also took account of paragraphs 64 to 66, which state:

64. Unlawful discrimination is unacceptable in modern society and standard 1.5 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics outlines that a registrant ‘must not discriminate against service users, carers or colleagues by allowing their personal views to affect [their] professional relationships or the care, treatment or other services that [they] provide.’

65. There can be serious consequences for public safety and confidence in the profession where a registrant discriminates against individuals with a protected characteristic, for example where a registrant:

• treats a service user or carer differently and worse than others because of who they are, or because of someone they are connected to;
• refuses to provide a service user with a service or take them on as a client;
• behaves in a way which causes the service user or carer distress, or offends or intimidates them;
• punishes a service user or carer for complaining about discrimination or helping someone else to complain.

66. For the reasons set out above, where a panel finds a registrant impaired and this involves unlawful discrimination, it is more likely to impose a serious sanction.”

76. Ms Bass submitted that the Registrant’s comments indicated a concerning attitude about race and, although there was no evidence that the Registrant had actively discriminated against service users and/or colleagues, her comments did come under what the Panel had already described as the “umbrella term” of discrimination. Ms Bass suggested that the Registrant was comfortable in her views on race because she shared them in a private conversation with another professional.

77. In relation to mitigating factors, Ms Bass confirmed that it could be said that the Registrant had some developing insight.

78. However, in relation to aggravating factors, Ms Bass indicated that there was generally a lack of insight and limited remediation.

79. Ms Bass referred the Panel to the various options open to it and highlighted certain parts of the SP. For instance, she highlighted paragraph 108 of the SP, which indicated that a Conditions of Practice Order was less likely in more serious cases, such as Discrimination. In relation to the possibility of a Suspension Order, she reminded the Panel that, although she was not currently working, the resident could always return to work as a Radiographer. Accordingly, she suggested that paragraph 124 might be of assistance to the panel; the panel noted that it stated:

“Short-term suspensions can also be appropriate in cases where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where further action is required in order to maintain public confidence in our professions.”

80. Finally, Ms Bass confirmed that a Striking Off order was available but reminded the Panel that this was for “serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving, for instance, discrimination” and that it was likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns were such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public or public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

Consideration of Sanction

81. The Panel took into account the various mitigating and aggravating factors suggested by the parties. These factors were as follows:

Mitigating Factors

(i) The Registrant had no previous adverse regulatory history; this was an isolated incident in an otherwise blemish free career;
(ii) There were no concerns about the Registrant’s abilities as a clinician;
(iii) The Registrant had expressed some remorse and had apologised for her comments, albeit not directly to the persons who were, or were likely to be, affected.
(iv) There has been no repetition of the misconduct, albeit that this is qualified by the fact that the Registrant has now retired from practice.

Aggravating Factors

(i) The Registrant’s misconduct indicated attitudinal issues regarding race, which appear to have been built up over a period of time;
(ii) The Registrant has limited insight, as demonstrated by the fact that she has failed to explain why she made the comments;
(iii) There is limited remediation, due to an absence of any reflections on what she has learned from attending the course in April 2024 or on her reading around the subject of unconscious bias;
(iv) Accordingly, there remains a significant risk of repetition should the Registrant ever return to practice;
(v) The Registrant’s misconduct falls within a category (“Discrimination”) that the SP indicates may warrant a more serious sanction.

Decision on Sanction

82. The Panel first considered taking No Action. The Panel considered that, because of the seriousness of the misconduct found, this would not be appropriate since it would not adequately protect the public or reflect the public interest.

83. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. The Panel noted paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a Caution Order was likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which the issue was isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature; where there was a low risk of repetition; and where a registrant had shown good insight and had undertaken appropriate remediation. The Panel considered that almost all of these criteria did not apply to the Registrant's case. Although the incident could be described as isolated and limited, the Panel did not consider it to be relatively minor in nature; the Panel considered that there was a significant risk of repetition; the Registrant had not shown good insight; and there is limited evidence of appropriate remediation. The Panel therefore concluded that a Caution Order was not appropriate.

84. The Panel then moved on to consider a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel noted paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a Conditions of Practice Order is likely to be appropriate in cases, inter alia, where a registrant has insight; the failings or deficiencies are capable of being remedied; there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent a registrant from remediating; appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated; and the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions.

85. The Panel noted that, in its view, the Registrant’s insight was limited and that what it saw as her attitudinal issues, were not easy to remediate. Furthermore, there were no clinical issues to address and consequently the Panel considered that it would be unable to formulate appropriate conditions. In addition, the Panel was not confident that the Registrant would comply with any conditions given the fact of her retirement from practice (notwithstanding the possibility that she could return).

86. Finally, the Panel noted the provisions of paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which indicated that conditions were less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving Discrimination.

87. Taking all these factors into consideration the Panel concluded that a conditions of practice order would not be the appropriate sanction in the Registrant’s case.

88. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Suspension Order. It noted that, at paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy, it was stated that a suspension order was likely to be appropriate where there were serious concerns which could not reasonably be addressed by a conditions of practice order but which did not require the registrant to be struck off the register. These types of cases would typically exhibit factors such as the concerns represented a serious breach of the standards of conduct performance and ethics; the registrant had insight; the issues were unlikely to be repeated; and there is evidence to suggest that the registrant was likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

89. The Panel considered that a number of these factors did apply to the Registrant’s case. The Panel had already found that a Conditions of Practice Order could not reasonably address the concerns regarding the Registrant’s attitudinal issues on race. Her misconduct did represent a serious breach of the standards of conduct performance and ethics. Although it could not be said the Registrant had full insight, there was limited insight in that she had accepted that what she had said was wrong. However, the Panel had found that there was a likelihood of repetition given the limited remediation.

90. The Panel considered that it was too soon to say that the Registrant was not likely to be able to resolve or remedy her failings. The Registrant had not attended the hearing so, consequently, she had not had the benefit of the Panel’s views on misconduct and current impairment, nor any time to reflect upon them and respond. The Registrant had nonetheless engaged with the proceedings by making written submissions. The Panel also noted that, in the past, she had made some efforts to respond to official censure regarding her misconduct. Accordingly, notwithstanding the lack of evidence currently before the Panel regarding her insight and remediation, the Panel concluded that, arguably, it could be said that there was evidence to suggest that the Registrant was likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings, if given the opportunity to do so. The Panel therefore considered that a Suspension Order, with a review, would be a fair outcome and would give the Registrant a chance to demonstrate greater insight and remediation.

91. Taking all these factors into account, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order, with a review, was the appropriate sanction in this case.

92. The Panel has considered the possibility of a Striking Off order. It noted paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy which stated that a striking off order was a sanction of last resort for “serious, persistent, deliberate and/or reckless acts” involving, for instance, Discrimination. The Panel considered that, although the misconduct found proved was serious, it had not been persistent.

93. Furthermore, the Panel took account of paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy, which stated that a Striking Off order was likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process; and that, in particular it was appropriate where a registrant lacked insight, continued to repeat the misconduct or is unwilling to resolve matters. The Panel considered that, currently, a lesser sanction was available which would be sufficient to protect the public and public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, namely a Suspension Order. Furthermore, the Registrant had some, albeit limited, insight; had not repeated the misconduct; and it was too soon to say that she was unwilling to resolve matters. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that a Striking Off order was not the appropriate or proportionate sanction at this stage.

94. The Panel therefore determined to make a Suspension Order for a period of nine months. The Panel considered that this length of time was, in any event, appropriate to mark the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, and would give her adequate opportunity to address the Panel’s concerns regarding her lack of insight and lack of remediation.

95. The Panel has also decided to direct that a review take place towards the end of the period of suspension and would suggest to the Registrant that, whilst this Panel cannot direct what a future reviewing panel should do, a future panel would be assisted by the Registrant providing evidence that she has reflected upon the Panel’s concerns, has developed greater insight (particularly by providing an explanation, if there is one, of why she said what she said) and what additional remediation of her misconduct has taken place.

96. The Panel therefore concluded that a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case. The Panel considered that it took account of the wider public interest, which includes: the protection of the public; the deterrent effect to other registrants; the reputation of the profession concerned; public confidence in the regulatory process; and ensuring that professional standards are upheld.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mrs Jeanette S Clewes for a period of 9 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1. Having determined to conclude this case by imposing a Suspension Order on the Registrant, the Panel heard an application by Ms Bass for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months (to cover any appeal period).

Application to proceed in absence

2. However, before asking the Panel to consider such an application, the Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that Ms Bass had to make a further application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, in accordance with the Practice Note on Interim Orders, which stated:

“If the registrant is absent, the HCPC will first have to make, and the Panel will have to determine, whether to proceed in the registrant’s absence with the HCPC’s application for an interim order and the HCPC will need to show that the registrant has been given notice that an application may be made. Such notice may be contained within the Notice of Final Hearing. As before, the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest will weigh heavily in favour of an application to proceed in absence, particularly when the Panel has made a finding that fitness to practise is impaired.”

3. Ms Bass repeated her previous submissions regarding proceeding in the Registrant’s absence at the beginning of the hearing and pointed out that the Registrant had been advised in the Notice of Hearing that such an application might be made if the Panel imposed a sanction which removed a registrant’s right to practise, which the Suspension Order did. She went on to say that the basis of the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence was the same as for the identical application that she had made at the commencement of the hearing, with the additional factor that the Panel had now determined that the Registrant should be suspended for a period of 9 months.

4. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who repeated his advice given at the commencement of the hearing. The Panel also had regard to the HCPC Practice Notes entitled “Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant” and on “Interim Orders”.

5. The Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. It noted that she had been given appropriate notice of the possibility of an Interim Order being applied for, such being an important part of what the Panel was required to do. Moreover, the Panel had now determined that the Registrant should be made the subject of a 9 month Suspension Order. Accordingly, for the same reasons as previously indicated, which included the Panel’s earlier findings that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing, the Panel decided to proceed in her absence when considering the application for an Interim Order.

Application for Interim Suspension Order

6. Ms Bass submitted that such an order was necessary on both public protection and public interest grounds on the basis that the Panel had decided that the Registrant should be made subject to a Suspension Order.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred it to paragraphs 133 to 135 of the SP, which state:

“What is an interim order?

133. If a panel imposes a conditions of practice order, suspension order, or striking off order, Article 31 of the Order provides the panel with the discretionary power to also impose an interim conditions of practice order or an interim suspension order. This will apply from the imposition of the substantive order, until the end of the appeal period, or where an appeal is made, the end of the appeal process.

When is an interim order appropriate?

134. The power to impose an interim order is discretionary, and so panels should not consider it to be an automatic outcome. The panel should carefully consider whether or not an interim order is necessary and should provide the parties with an opportunity to address the panel on whether an interim order is required.

135. An interim order is likely to be required in cases where:

• there is a serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the registrant’s lack of professional knowledge or skills, conduct, or unmanaged health problems; or

• 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.”

8. The Panel took account of the Practice Note on Interim Orders and first considered whether an interim order was necessary. It noted that there had been limited engagement by the Registrant and that the Panel had concluded that, due to the serious nature of her Misconduct, she should be Suspended from the Register for a period of 9 months. The Panel was therefore satisfied that there was a serious and on-going risk to service users and/or the public and that for the same reasons public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to return to unrestricted practice.

9. Having determined that an interim order was necessary, the Panel then considered the appropriate form of such an order, beginning with the least restrictive. It first considered whether an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient to protect the public or meet the wider public interest. For the same reasons as given when deciding not to impose a substantive Conditions of Practice Order on the Registrant, the Panel decided that such an Interim Order would not be appropriate to manage the risks identified by the Panel and that it would be perverse to impose an order inconsistent with the substantive order of Suspension.

Decision

10. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order was the appropriate and proportionate order to be imposed on the Registrant. It also determined that it should be for a period of 18 months since, if there was any appeal, the substantive order would not come into effect.

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.
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 Jeanette S Clewes

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
15/12/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended