Edwin V Bedford

Preliminary Matters:

Service and Proceeding in Absence

1. The Panel was informed that the Registrant was advised of today’s review hearing by email notice dated 4 December 2024 containing all the relevant details of the hearing. The Panel accepted legal advice, and it was satisfied that proper service had been made in accordance with the relevant rules.

2. Mr Slack for the HCPC applied to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He advised that proper notice has been given and in addition the HCPC had contacted the Registrant on 4 February 2025 to remind him of the hearing and asking him to confirm his position on attendance. The Registrant had not replied to the HCPC. The Panel was advised that Special Counsel, Ms Yeghikian, had contacted the Registrant by email that morning and she was in receipt of his instructions. However, the Registrant had stated to her that he would not be attending, advising “please proceed without me.” 

3. The Panel is aware that its discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with care. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on proceeding in absence and to the guidance in Adeogba v GMC [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which makes clear that the first question the Panel should ask is whether all reasonable efforts have been taken to serve the Registrant with notice. The discretion whether or not to proceed in absence must be exercised with caution having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Registrant being a prime consideration, balanced with fairness to the regulator and the interests of the public.

4. The Panel has found good service. The Registrant has not sought an adjournment, and he has asked the Panel to proceed without his attendance. There is nothing to indicate he would attend at a future date should the Panel adjourn. Given all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the absence of the Registrant who has waived his right to attend.

Privacy application

5. The Panel was advised by Mr Slack that some witnesses refer to health and private matters in the course of their evidence. Having taken advice from the Legal Assessor as to the interests of justice and the importance of the open justice principle, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate in the circumstances to depart from that principle and to conduct the hearing partly in private if and when any such evidence arose in order to protect the witness’s right to privacy.

Background:

6. Mr Edwin Bedford (‘the Registrant’) is a registered Occupational Therapist (OT). On 28 March 2022, the HCPC received a referral from Colleague I, the General Manager at St Magnus Hospital (“the hospital”), regarding the Registrant’s alleged unprofessional conduct. The hospital had conducted an internal investigation into his conduct.

7. The Registrant was employed as Head of Therapies at the hospital, with management responsibilities for that department. In the referral form, Colleague I summarised the allegations against the Registrant as follows:-

• Engaging in unwanted touching of colleagues and / or inappropriate conduct (Colleagues C, D and E).
• Harassment of a junior colleague (Colleague C);
• Threatening behaviour towards colleagues.

8. At its meeting on 13 June 2024, a Panel of the Investigating Committee of the HCPC decided that there was a case to answer in relation to an allegation of impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practice and it referred the matter to the Conduct and Competence Committee for a final hearing.

9. The allegation sets out the alleged misconduct by the Registrant, in summary it is alleged he engaged in unwanted touching of colleagues; threatening behaviour toward colleagues; was dishonest; made comments that were alleged racially motivated and that he inappropriately shared information about job applications.

10. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give live evidence:

• Colleague C;
• Colleague E;
• Colleague D;
• Colleague I;
• Colleague G;
• Colleague B;
• Colleague A; and
• Colleague H

Summary of Evidence

Colleague C

11. Colleague C is an Occupational Therapy Assistant, and she worked at the hospital from around January 2021. She met the Registrant around six months later and continued working with him until February 2022. She referred to and adopted her formal written witness statement.

12. Colleague C told the Panel that the Registrant would frequently touch her shoulder and head. She said she told him to stop but he did not do so. She said that the touching was not inappropriate and was in front of other colleagues.

13. The Registrant also asked her to attend his office unnecessarily and on three occasions he had bought her gifts which she found “awkward”. She was not aware whether other colleagues received gifts from the Registrant. She said that he had frequently messaged her out of work hours.

14. Colleague C stated that on 15 June 2021 the Registrant had called her into his office for a “catch up”. At the time, Colleague C had commented that the only other white woman in the OT team was Colleague A. The conversation led to the Registrant saying “white girls are easy for Indian men” or words to that effect. Colleague C said that she had no idea why he had made such a comment. She accepted she may not have been aware of the context of the comment.

15. Colleague C stated that there was another time, whilst in the office, when others were present, that the Registrant had made the comment “if you fuck me over I will fuck you over worse” or words to that effect. She did not believe he had made this comment directly to her and she could not recall the context behind the conversation, but she did recall thinking it was an odd thing to say. She felt he was playing “mind games.”

16. Around November 2021, when Colleague C was leaving the office to go the ward, the Registrant came over to her and started making comments about Colleague E’s bra. The Registrant had said to Colleague C that Colleague E had leaned on or over him and he was not comfortable about it. The Registrant had explained that because of the lean over he could tell how padded her bra was. The Registrant then continued to question why women should have to wear a bra so padded. She said he seemed to be gossiping and it was “uncomfortable.”

17. Colleague C said that the Registrant would frequently share details of potential job applicants with her. There was a time where he sent her the TikTok account of a potential employee, whom they were recruiting at the time. The Registrant had found the applicant’s personal profile on TikTok and showed this to Colleague C. She was not sure whether he showed others, but she said she would have been mortified if that was her. She said that she did not think she should have been privy to the information the Registrant shared about job applicants, which he would leave around the office and at the printer. She said that she was not the only person with access to the office printer. He also emailed Colleague C a number of CVs.

18. By January 2022, Colleague C said she had “had enough” of the Registrant and she had sent her supervision notes with Colleague A to Colleague L and a complaint about the Registrant was later made.

19. In cross examination, Colleague C accepted that it was possible she had sent some photos of her dogs to the Registrant, but she could not recall. She accepted that she had sent a message showing her car warning light to the Registrant followed by a message about trying to find online a wedding dress which had produced in error a picture of a porn star. She accepted that she was friendly with the Registrant and that certain boundaries may have been crossed. She accepted that the relationship and messages were never sexual.

20. Colleague C told the Registrant that she did not want to be touched by him. However, she said that he continued to touch her shoulder and he had then suggested she move her desk. She had told him directly to stop but he had not stopped so she took it further.

21. Colleague C said that the Registrant had suggested that she relocate her desk to a corner of the office. Colleague C said that she did not recall hugging the Registrant except when she got engaged. She said she felt that he had “abused” their friendship, and it was not like a father daughter relationship as the Registrant claimed. She felt he had not respected her boundaries about touching. She said she was friends with him but on reflection she felt manipulated.

Colleague E

22. Colleague E is an Occupational Therapy Assistant. She adopted her formal witness statement. The Registrant was her direct line manager at the hospital at the time of the allegations.

23. Colleague E stated that a few months into her employment, when speaking in office, the Registrant made the comment to her:- "you can be my bitch" or words to that effect. She said he was coming across as joking, but she was quite unsure about the comment as it was not appropriate. She stated it was the kind of comment you would say if you were friends with the person, or had known the person for a long time. She did not remember anyone else being present and she considered the comment had been directed at her. She said she “took it on the chin” as it came from a manager but “deep down” she felt it was not right.

24. Colleague E stated that the Registrant had hugged her after a supervision discussion in his office. She said she had never said to him that she did not want to be hugged or touched, but there is normally a professional boundary, he was her manager. She said that the hug made her feel “weird” as there was a boundary in a relationship between employee and manager, and also he is a male. She said it did not feel like a “normal thing” and it was not appropriate. She had felt “uneasy” and “confused” by his actions, and rather vulnerable. At the time she did not think the hug was sexual or sexually motivated, and she did not report it at the time.

25. Colleague E stated that at one point early on in her employment, she and the Registrant were having a conversation in the office and he had offered to help with her neck, as she had a neck issue. She had agreed to have him look at her shoulder as she had assumed he was qualified to do so. She had gone into his office and he had closed the door behind her and locked it. Nobody else was present. The Registrant started his examination by feeling around the muscles on her neck and then went down her back and shoulder blade and felt round, then to the front area of her shoulder at the top of her chest and down round her arm pit, inside her t-shirt. She believed he was assessing the muscles and she had given consent. She accepted the Registrant may have also sent her emails about exercises to assist but could not recall.

26. The Registrant had asked whether she minded, and she said she had just agreed as his hand was already examining the area. During the examination, the Registrant moved the neck of her t-shirt as he was examining around the muscles in that area. She believed that he also moved the bottom of her top to look at her shoulder. She said she did give consent, as he did ask her whether he could lift up her top so he could have a look.

27. On a date she was unable to recall, the Registrant was standing in the doorway to the office, and she was at the computers. She said the Registrant had made a comment to the team stating if anyone tried to complain it would not go anywhere or work as he had “the higher authority”. She said that seemed an odd thing to say.

28. In cross examination, Colleague E said that despite the Registrant’s suggestion of such, she did not recall asking to stop work as an assistant. She recalled the Registrant explaining another post was not available but she denied resenting the Registrant as a result.

Colleague D

29. Colleague D adopted her formal witness statement. She is an OT Assistant and worked with the Registrant at the time of the allegation. He was her direct line manager.

30. Colleague D said that the Registrant was “boastful” about his position. In January 2022 she had mentioned that her shoulders hurt and the Registrant had said to her that her “boobs were too big.” She said she heard the Registrant mentioning “boobs” in other conversations in the office, and she heard him referring to Colleague E’s breasts. She said that the Registrant would also frequently touch her on the head as he passed her desk and pat her head “like a dog” and he would make derogatory comments about her work. At one point he had also made reference to his penis.

31. Colleague D said the Registrant’s conduct had made her feel uncomfortable.

32. Within her first month in the role, Colleague D had said she may report the Registrant and he had replied to her stating “don’t try it love… who do you think they would believe, you who has just started or me?” She said she did not see that as a joke given his tone. She said that he used his position of power and she had never before worked with a manager like him. Colleague D said she thought he may have been trying to be “banterous”.

33. Colleague D said that the Registrant would send her messages on her personal telephone. She accepted that she had messaged him on 17 January 2022 to ask to be collected from the train station and had added “xx” (kisses) to the message, which she described as a courtesy, and had further messages the next day. She said there was a WhatsApp group for the team, but she recalled this was a direct message to the Registrant.

34. Colleague D also stated that, in the course of her applying for her role at the hospital, she had confidentially shared with the Registrant some information about her DBS status. He had then shared that information with her colleagues as they had later raised the issue with her.

35. Colleague D told the Panel about the incident on 28 January 2022 when the Registrant had examined her in his office after she had told him she had a sore back. She said that after talking about some personal matters, the Registrant had rubbed her thigh while sat close to her. He had then held her hands to pull her up to a standing position. He had then touched her stomach and he had untucked her uniform top, but he had not asked for her consent to do this. She said she felt vulnerable and would have left the room if she could. The Registrant had then hugged her and she felt he was “insinuating a kiss”. The Registrant then said “why are you like this with me” and she felt he was holding something over her. She replied “I am like this with all my managers. Friendly and nice”. She denied that he had apologised to her or that she had given him consent, she said there was no discussion about consent. She had expected him only to touch her back and that he was doing so in his professional role.

Colleague I

36. Colleague I is a manager in the hospital where the Registrant worked at the time of the allegation. She adopted her formal witness statement.

37. Colleague I stated that she managed the Registrant when he was Head of Therapies. She stated that she had needed to bring the contract of one locum OT to an end due, in part, to a complaint by the locum that the Registrant had spoken rudely to her. She said that people cannot get on with everyone, but she had asked the Registrant to reflect on the situation. She supervised the Registrant and conducted his appraisal in October 2021 and there were no concerns at that time.

38. Colleague I dealt with the complaint about the Registrant in January 2022. This raised concerns about the Registrant with allegations of inappropriate sexual touching, harassment and threatening behaviour. An investigation at the hospital followed and the Registrant was suspended.

Colleague G

39. Colleague G was an activities coordinator at the hospital at the time of the allegation. She adopted her formal witness statement. Colleague G stated that Colleague C had reported to her some of her concerns about the Registrant’s behaviour and him saying "if you fuck me over I will fuck you over worse".

40. Colleague G stated that around December/January 2022 time there was a racial comment made by the Registrant. She was downstairs in the office at St Magnus’ sister hospital. The office was shared between the therapies team and when the Registrant came down to work at the hospital he used the OT computer. At the time, she was writing notes and eating her lunch, other colleagues, including Colleague H, were also present in the office. She stated the Registrant was in the office and mentioned that they were getting a new member of staff and mentioned that they were Chinese. The Registrant said to her that he had interviewed a woman and then said "I am not racist but she is Chinese, they are a controlling race. We will see as she may want to run the show.” She stated that she did not want to be involved in the conversation as it did not feel appropriate and she left the room. She said the comment was racist and unacceptable.

41. Colleague G said she did not feel confident in the Registrant’s professionalism and she thought he was “odd”. She said he did not target her in any way, but she had heard a lot from colleagues about his conduct. She recalls him saying to her once over a cigarette outside that “"everyone thinks I'm a very sweet guy but I'm a bastard.” She said that seemed a very strange thing to say to her as a junior member of staff and she did not know him. She said that the Registrant did not cross any boundaries with her.

42. Colleague G said that she felt the Registrant was taking advantage of Colleague C’s vulnerability. She was aware that he messaged Colleague C outside of work and gave her a back massage. She thought that was “incredibly inappropriate” and she felt that he had singled out Colleague C. She said that the Registrant was often rude and derogatory about women, including his wife. She was shocked but not surprised when she heard of his behaviour from Colleague C. She described it as “general gossip.”

43. Colleague G was asked by the Legal Assessor for her response to what the Registrant had said in his written rebuttal stating that he had worked with people from many countries. She said she thought that this was just an attempt to avoid the issue and to suggest that he therefore could not be racist.

Colleague B

44. Colleague B was a senior activity coordinator at the hospital at the time of the allegation. He formally adopted his witness statement. He said that initially he got on very well with the Registrant who was his “boss.”

45. Colleague B stated that on 2 November 2021, Colleague A had sent him an email. She told him she had heard the Registrant speaking about him in a negative manner to people in his department, which he said was not very professional. The Registrant appeared to have expressed that he was not happy with Colleague B but did not explain to colleagues exactly why he felt that way. Colleague B said it appeared that the Registrant was undermining him. Colleague B confronted the Registrant the next day, asking if he was doing his job well and if everything was okay. The Registrant did not have anything to say in response, he never elaborated to Colleague B about why he had a problem with him. Colleague B did not push it as he did not want to create friction in the department. He said he had concerns about the Registrant’s professionalism.

46. Colleague B stated that the Registrant said things that he thought perhaps were used as intimidation, for example referring to himself as a “bastard” when talking to others. He was also told that the Registrant said to other colleagues “if you fuck with me I will fuck you over.” The comment that “Indian men go for white woman because they are easy” was relayed to him by colleagues and he thought it was in character for the Registrant. Colleague B added that he felt that the Registrant did seem rather interested in Colleague C.

47. Colleague B stated that he needed to recruit at that time, and he had received some CVs from applicants. On a few occasions, the Registrant had shown applicant’s CVs to others in the department, pointing out spelling mistakes or flaws in the application, saying words to the effect of ‘ha ha look at this’. Colleague B said this was inappropriate because the Registrant was showing CVs to people who were not involved in the recruitment process, and it was also inappropriate because he was being rude about people who would potentially be joining the team in the future. He said the Registrant’s conduct made him feel awkward.

48. Colleague B believed he had mentioned his back pain to the Registrant and the Registrant had asked if he could take a look. He recalled this took place in the Registrant’s office with the door shut, but not locked. The Registrant touched Colleague B’s hip, back or shoulder and he assumed this to be innocent at the time and did not recall feeling uncomfortable. He could not recall the Registrant’s opinion on his back, but he heard from Colleague E that a similar thing had happened with her, only he had locked the door when he had examined her.

49. Colleague B said that he became aware that other colleagues had raised complaints about the Registrant. Colleague B was later interviewed as part of the internal investigation at the hospital.

Colleague A

50. Colleague A was a senior OT assistant at the hospital at the time of the allegation. The Registrant was her direct line manager and she supervised some of the junior staff in the team. She formally adopted her witness statement. She was assisted by a translator.

51. Colleague A said that she had a professional relationship with the Registrant. Colleague A stated that she felt “suspicious” about the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour and started to keep notes. She explained that the Occupational Therapy department was looking for new staff, and that meant they frequently had CVs in the office and undertook interviews. Sometimes Colleague A would conduct the interviews with the Registrant, or would assist him.

52. Colleague A said the Registrant would share applicants’ CVs with other people in the team. She had noticed this happening around November and December 2021 and she did not believe this was correct as the CVs contained personal details, email addresses and telephone numbers. They had a proper place for them, but the Registrant did not seem to put papers away. This meant that colleagues, and everyone with access to the office, saw CVs for people who later joined. Those who had seen the CVs would know the applicants’ backgrounds and where they lived. She said it was fine for her and the Registrant to have access to this information when interviewing, but, in her opinion, it was not for the Registrant to share the information with people not involved in the interview process.

53. ln January 2022, Colleague A recalled that she was sitting at her desk in the office and the Registrant had asked her for something. She was speaking to him and she could not recall the exact words he used, but he compared the pen he was holding to the size of his penis. The comment was made in public in front of other people and she said it was a completely inappropriate comment to make in a work environment. The Registrant was laughing about it at the time. She did not laugh or respond. She said she was surprised as he should not have said this to a colleague. She said he often made inappropriate comments, it was fairly typical of him, but it was “so unprofessional”.

54. Colleague A stated that Colleagues C and D had both told of their concerns about the Registrant’s conduct. Colleague C had told Colleague A that she felt the Registrant was stalking her and harassing her. She said that, in her opinion, the Registrant was obsessed with Colleague C. Colleague A said he was constantly calling Colleague C, asking about her and talking about her. She thought the relationship was reaching an “extreme” point. She considered Colleague C did not reciprocate and did not have the same feelings towards him and she had remained professional towards him.

55. As regards Colleague D, Colleague A said that the Registrant saw her as a “new blood” as he was becoming bored with Colleague C, who was becoming defensive. She thought that the Registrant saw Colleague D as a new point of interest, a new possible relationship, “an entertainment”. She did not think that she had misunderstood or misconstrued the situation. She said that she once saw the Registrant massaging Colleague D’s neck and shoulders in the office, she knew that Colleague D did have some neck problems, and she did not appear to be resisting or objecting.

56. Colleague A said she never had any sense that the Registrant was harassing her. However, he had asked her about that concern in an open meeting which she did not think was a fair way to deal with it.

Colleague H

57. Colleague H was a physical activity coordinator at the hospital at the time of the allegation. He formally adopted his written statement. He said initially his relationship with the Registrant was good, but subsequently he lost patience with him.

58. Colleague H stated that he recalled the Registrant making reference to the fact that an applicant was Chinese or Asian. He could not recall the exact wording due to the lapse in time but the Registrant had said words to the effect of "you know what they're like, they want to be in charge and have it their way". There were two other people in the office at the time, Colleague G and another colleague. Colleague H could not remember who started the conversation, but he remembered feeling a little shocked by the comment, it seemed an “odd” thing to say. Colleague H stated he had also worked abroad and would not make such comments.

59. Colleague H stated that the Registrant was also known to go through applicant's CVs in the office and share confidential information about applicants. He considered it was nobody else's business to know these details, and on a few occasions the candidates were successful and joined the hospital. He stated that he witnessed it first hand on one occasion and he knew that the Registrant had previously done this because staff had mentioned it. He could not recall what information he shared, but he knew the Registrant discussed their CVs with other staff not involved in the interview process. Colleague H knew that one applicant had issues with their DBS, and the Registrant had discussed it with colleagues when he should not.

60. Colleague H stated that there was an occasion, although he could not recall the date, when the Registrant “knocked” Colleague E’s chair. Whilst she was sat on her chair the Registrant had moved the seat down to the bottom. That did not hurt her, but Colleague H thought he should not be playing with people's chairs when they are sat in them. Colleague H asked him to stop touching other’s chairs and he did so.

61. Colleague H knew that the Registrant said to one of the girls in the team, "I’m the boss I can do what I want". He was present at the time. He had also heard from other colleagues that he had described white women as “trash.” He said that he was not entirely surprised to hear that.

Colleague J

62. The Panel accepted Colleague J’s witness statement into the evidence and it was taken as read into the record. Colleague J exhibited the hospital interview records with many of the witnesses which were conducted in February 2022 as part of the hospital’s internal investigation into the Registrant’s conduct.

63. The HCPC closed its case on facts.

Amendment of the Allegation

64. The Panel first noted that particular 3 of the Allegation, contains a typographical error in that it refers to 2022 rather than 2021. The evidence is clearly 2021, the Registrant had left the hospital by November 2022. Therefore, the Panel, amended the date of this particular.

65. The Panel, having heard all the evidence and having taken legal advice, decided to amend the allegation of its own volition. It was mindful of the over arching objectives of the HCPC, and the need for fairness. It had concerns that the present wording of particular 10 may lead to an under prosecution given that it refers only to some of the alleged conduct being sexual or sexually motivated. Particular 10 currently reads:

“10. Your conduct in relation to Particulars 1a-c, and/or 4a-e, and/or 5a-f was sexual in nature and/or sexually motivated.”

66. The Panel considered that particular 10 as presently expressed does not include the lesser, such as the conduct alleged being inappropriate or a breach of professional boundaries. Whilst, in principle, the greater includes the lesser, the Panel was concerned that there was in the present wording a real risk of under prosecution. It decided that the potential, lesser findings in respect of the conduct alleged required to be made explicit in particular 10. The Panel was satisfied that the amendment did not alter the overall nature or gravity of the allegation as it introduced possible, less serious and alternative findings in respect of the conduct alleged.

67. Accordingly, with the over arching objectives of the HCPC in mind, and to properly reflect the evidence it has heard, the Panel decided that it would amend particular 10. It decided to add in reference to the conduct alleged in particulars 2 and 3, which is not currently referred to in particular 10. It also decided to add in reference to the alleged conduct being inappropriate and/or a breach of professional boundaries. Particular 10 was therefore amended by the Panel to read as follows:-

“10. Your conduct in relation to Particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 was inappropriate and/or was a breach of professional boundaries and/or was sexual in nature and/or was sexually motivated.”

Closing Submissions for the HCPC

68. Mr Slack for the HCPC invited the Panel to accept the evidence of Colleagues C and D. He submitted that Colleague C was open and fair in giving her evidence. He invited the Panel to accept her evidence about the alleged touching and comments made to her by the Registrant. The evidence of the CV disclosure was not challenged.

69. Mr Slack invited the Panel to accept Colleague D’s evidence about the massage the Registrant gave her. The Registrant was her senior and he asserted he was a “higher authority”. That was not challenged in cross examination. He submitted that Colleague D was clear in her evidence about the Registrant repeatedly patting her head and once referring to his penis. She was also clear about the Registrant stating to her “who do you think they would believe, you…”.

70. Mr Slack submitted that Colleague G’s evidence was corroborative, and her evidence was that the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleague C was deeply inappropriate, as was the comment the Registrant made about Chinese people. This was supported by the evidence of Colleague E.

71. Mr Slack invited the Panel to accept the evidence of Colleague A, she supported the evidence of other witnesses that the Registrant’s conduct was inappropriate. The Registrant expressed control and invincibility to junior, female colleagues and his comments and actions were inappropriate. He was a senior manager and a professional of some 20 years experience.

72. Mr Slack referred to the case law on sexually motivated conduct. Colleague C said she felt manipulated by the Registrant, and with hindsight she thought the conduct towards her was sexual. The Registrant viewed Colleagues C, D and E sexually and his conduct towards them was sexually motivated.

73. Mr Slack invited the Panel to find the conduct alleged in particular 6 to be dishonest, it was an attempt to dissuade complaints from colleagues about him. He also invited the Panel to find the alleged comments to be racially motivated. The evidence about the CV sharing was not challenged and he submitted that it should be accepted. Mr Slack invited the Panel to find the whole allegation proved.

Decision on Facts:

74. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised that the burden of proof of facts lay solely on the HCPC, and the standard of proof was the balance of probabilities. He referred the Panel to the January 2025 HCPC Practice note - “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind” and he referred it to the relevant case law, including Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) on sexual motivation and Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 on dishonesty.

Particular 1

Between June 2021 and October 2021, you:

a) Touched Colleague C on the head and/or shoulders.
b) Continued to touch Colleague C on multiple occasions following being told by her that she did not like being touched.
c) Gave one or more gifts to Colleague C.
d) Said to Colleague C “if you fuck me over, I will fuck you over worse” or words to that effect.

Sub-particular 1a)

75. The Panel had regard to the live evidence of Colleague C and to her witness statement, including that given to the internal investigation, and the supervision records. The Panel found that she was honest, open and measured in giving her evidence. She was consistent in her live evidence, her HCPC witness statement and in her interview with the hospital in February 2022. The Panel found her evidence to be credible and reliable. She said that the Registrant frequently touched her on the head as he past her desk and that he continued to do so when she had told him not to.

76. The Registrant has accepted in his written “rebuttal” response to this Panel, and his interview with the hospital, that he touched C on the shoulder once and that he had given her gifts. The Panel found this proved.

Sub-particular 1b)

77. The Registrant accepts that he was asked not to touch Colleague C, as she said in her evidence. She said that he nonetheless continued to do so. The Panel accepted that evidence and found this proved.

Sub-particular 1c)

78. The Registrant admits in his hospital interview that he gave a gift, a mug, to Colleague C. Colleague C said she received gifts of a mug, some highlighters, and on the occasion of her engagement, a picture frame from the Registrant. The Panel accepted this evidence and found this proved.

Sub-particular 1d)

79. Colleague C said in her evidence that she heard the Registrant say this phrase but that it was not said “to her.” This appeared to be a comment made at large by the Registrant in the office, but there was no evidence that it was said to Colleague C. Given the wording of this sub-particular it is therefore not proved as the evidence did not support that it was “said to” Colleague C. This is not proved.

Particular 2

On 05 November 2021, you pulled Colleague C’s arm.

80. Colleague C consistently described this incident in her witness statement and hospital interview. Colleagues B and A were also present. Colleague A’s interview refers to the Registrant “pulling” Colleague C away. This evidence is consistent with Colleague C’s account. The Panel found this evidence credible and reliable and it accepted both Colleague C’s and Colleague A’s consistent and supportive account. It found this proved.

Particular 3

In or around November 2021, you stated to Colleague C that Colleague E had “lent on (you) the other day and that (you) could feel her push up bra” or words to that effect

81. The Panel considered the evidence from Colleague C who told the Panel about this incident. Colleague C refers to November 2021 and she states that the Registrant had told her that he had been “lent on” by Colleague E and he had then made these comments about the push up bra. The Panel found that evidence credible and plausible. The Registrant states in his rebuttal statement that he “confided” in Colleague C about being leant on by Colleague E. This is consistent with the evidence of Colleague C. Having considered the evidence in the round, the Panel found this proved.

Particular 4

On or around 28 January 2022, you:

a) Touched Colleague D’s shoulders without consent.
b) Untucked Colleague D’s top.
c) Touched Colleague D’s stomach.
d) Hugged Colleague D.
e) Touched Colleague D’s thighs

82. The Panel considered Colleague D’s evidence. She said the Registrant had rubbed her thigh while sat close to her. He had then held her hands to pull her up to a standing position. He had then touched her stomach and he had untucked her uniform top, but he had not asked for her consent for this. She said in her live evidence that she was self-conscious about her stomach and she was clear that he had touched her stomach.

83. The Registrant denies this and he states that he did not “treat” anyone. He accepts in his interview with the hospital, however that he did examine several of his colleagues and some had lifted their tops.

84. The Panel found particular 4a) not proved as Colleague D was clear that she had given consent to the Registrant. It found the Registrant did touch her shoulders, but that he did so with her consent. The Panel found that Colleague D’s witness statement and live evidence about this incident was largely consistent, open, credible and reliable. The Panel found sub-particulars 4b), c), d) and e) proved.

Particular 5

On unknown dates in January 2022, you:

a) Said to Colleague D “you have big boobs” or words to that effect.
b) Verbally compared a pen to the size of your penis in front of Colleague D and Colleague A.
c) Said to Colleague E “You can be my bitch” or words to that effect.
d) Hugged Colleague E.
e) Massaged Colleague E’s shoulders and neck.
f) Asked Colleague E to “lift her top up at the back” or words to that effect.
g) Patted Colleague D on the head on one or more occasions.
h) Continued to pat Colleague D on the head despite being told by her that she did not like being touched.

Sub-particular 5a)

85. Colleague D’s evidence about the Registrant’s comment about her “boobs” was consistent in her live evidence, in her HCPC witness statement, in her statement to her employer dated 3 February 2022, and in her interview with the hospital on 17 February 2022. She was clear in her evidence that it was not a comment she would forget. She said the Registrant often sexualised conversations. The Panel found her evidence to be cogent, consistent and credible. The Panel found this proved.

Sub-particular 5b)

86. Both Colleagues D and A gave evidence that the Registrant compared a pen to the size of his penis. The Panel found that evidence was consistent and credible. The Registrant in his written response appears to deny this. The date this occurred on is not clear from the evidence. The Panel found this proved.

Sub-particular 5c)

87. Colleague E’s evidence was that the Registrant said this to her and that is consistent with her written statement to the hospital on 17 February 2022. It is unclear what date this was said on, but the Panel found that the evidence was clear and credible as to what was said to Colleague E by the Registrant. This is found proved.

Sub-particular 5d)

88. Colleague E states clearly in her evidence that the Registrant hugged her, and that it felt inappropriate and made her anxious. The Registrant appears to accept in his hospital interview on 17 February 2022 that he hugged his staff. Colleague E’s evidence was credible, it was accepted, and this is found proved.

Sub-particulars 5e) & f)

89. Colleague E’s evidence was that the Registrant massaged her shoulder and neck in his locked office. She said she had “just agreed” to his conduct. The evidence in her witness statement and in her hospital statement of 17 February 2022 is consistent. She uses the word “massage” and she also states that he lifted her top. The Registrant said in his interview that he had “assessed” all of his team and that he had “lifted” some colleagues tops, but not with Colleague E. The Panel found Colleague E’s evidence cogent, credible and consistent and it found this particular proved.

Sub-particulars 5g) & h)

90. Colleague D’s evidence was clear and consistent. She said the Registrant had repeatedly patted her on the head “like a dog” even after she asked him not to do so. The Panel found Colleague D’s evidence to be credible and consistent and it found this proved.

Particulars 6 and 7

6. In or around January 2022 you:

a) Told Colleague E that if she “tried to complain it would not go anywhere or work as (you) had higher authority” or words to that effect.

b) Told Colleague D “don’t try it love” or words to that effect in relation to raising a complaint.

7. Your conduct in relation to Particular 6 was dishonest, in that you attempted to use your senior position to dissuade Colleague E and Colleague D from making complaints about your behaviour.

Sub-particular 6a)

91. Given the term of these sub-particulars, the Panel considered 6 and 7 together. It considered the evidence of Colleagues E and D. The Panel found their evidence open and credible. The Panel found that Colleague E was consistent in her witness statement and in her hospital interview that the Registrant had made this comment to the team when other colleagues were present. It appears from the evidence that the statement was made broadly rather than specifically to individual colleagues. Nonetheless, the Panel found that Colleague E was “told” that by the Registrant. The Panel also noted that the Registrant appears to accept in his rebuttal document that he called himself a “bastard.” The Panel accepted Colleague E’s evidence and found this proved

Sub-particular 6b)

92. Colleague D in her live evidence, witness statement and hospital interview was consistent that the Registrant had made this comment. She was cross examined on this comment and was clear that she did not consider it was a “jokey” comment. She expressed concerns about losing her job and felt anxious. The Panel found this proved.

Particular 7

93. The Panel was mindful of the advice in the Ivey case. The evidence from Colleagues D and E indicates a picture of the Registrant asserting his seniority. The Panel accepted that evidence. The Registrant appears to have used a tone of pressure and threat towards more junior colleagues. The Panel found that conduct was arrogant, inappropriate, and that it was unprofessional. The Registrant sought to use his seniority and power to intimidate colleagues. However, whilst the Panel concluded that this conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional the Panel found that it was not conduct that an ordinary, decent person would consider to be dishonest. Whilst the conduct is proved, dishonesty is found not proved and hence particular 7 is found not proved.

Particular 8

Between June 2021 and February 2022, you stated:

a) “I am not racist, but she is Chinese, they are a controlling race. We will see as she may want to run the show” or words to that effect.

b) “White girls are easy for Indian men” or words to that effect.

Sub-particular 8a)

94. The Panel considered the evidence of Colleague G and H. Both witnesses report that these words were said by the Registrant. Both witnesses were consistent in their live evidence, hospital interviews and in their witness statements. Their evidence was clear and cogent as to what the Registrant had said. The Panel accepted that evidence and found this proved.

Sub-particular 8b)

95. The Panel considered the evidence of Colleague C. She reported that the Registrant said these, or similar, words in her presence and that she “felt targeted”. Colleague B said that he heard about this comment after the event, possibly from Colleague C. The Registrant in his rebuttal document seeks to contextualise this comment. His position is not clear and was not tested in evidence. The Panel found that Colleague C’s evidence was clear and credible and found 8b) proved.

Particular 9

Between 7 April 2021 and 3 February 2022, you:

a) Gave the name and Tik-Tok account of a potential applicant to Colleague C.
b) showed CVs of potential applications to one or more colleagues who were not part of the recruitment process.
c) Shared that Colleague D had an issue with their DBS with Colleague C.

Sub-particulars 9a) & b)

96. The Panel took account of the evidence of Colleague C in her witness statement. She refers to the Tik-Tok account and its disclosure by the Registrant. She and Colleagues A and B all refer consistently to the discussions the Registrant regularly had with them about applicant’s CVs. Colleague H also said he had witnessed CVs being discussed by the Registrant. The Panel also had before it an email sent by the Registrant to Colleague C on 15 November 2021 attaching four PDF documents containing CVs that he had been sent by HR. The Panel found the evidence of this consistent, cogent and credible and it found these particulars proved.

Sub-particular 9c)

97. The Panel considered the evidence of Colleague D who said that the Registrant had disclosed this to Colleague C. Colleague A said that the Registrant had tried to discuss the DBS issue about Colleague D with her, but she did not want to get involved. Colleague C’s evidence was that she was made aware of the DBS issue by the Registrant. Colleague D’s evidence was that Colleague C had raised the DBS issue with her, and she concluded that as only the Registrant knew about it, he must have disclosed that information to Colleague C. That analysis appears to be correct. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleagues C and D and found this proved.

Particular 10

Your conduct in relation to Particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and /or 5 was inappropriate and/or was a breach of professional boundaries and/or was sexual in nature and/or was sexually motivated.

98. The Panel considered each part of the conduct found proved in particulars 1 to 5 of the Allegation. It considered that conduct in relation to each of the alleged mischiefs in particular 10, from inappropriate onward. It first considered its findings in particular 1 a), 1 b) and 1 c).

99. Particular 1 - The Panel found this to be a course of conduct of a similar nature. The Registrant should not have touched any colleagues without consent. The Registrant used the power, age and gender imbalance to touch Colleague C, and he continued to do so despite being asked to stop. The Registrant ignored the request to stop thus demonstrating a lack of respect and dignity for his colleague. The Panel found that 1a) and 1b) was inappropriate conduct and it was a breach of professional boundaries. There was evidence from Colleague C that only some colleagues received gifts and the Panel found that 1c) was inappropriate. It demonstrated favouritism by a senior colleague in singling out a junior colleague.

100. The Panel found that the conduct proved was not sexual. It was not manifestly sexual nor was it sexual because of its nature or circumstances. As regards sexual motivation, the Panel was mindful of the guidance on sexual motivation. It looked at the evidence in the round and at the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleague C. She spoke about feeling uncomfortable with the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour. Colleague A said in her evidence that the Registrant was “obsessed” with Colleague C until she started becoming “defensive”. Colleague A said that the Registrant then saw Colleague D as “new blood”. That was her impression.

101. The Panel found that in this specific conduct the Registrant was pursuing a friendship with Colleague C. The Panel found that such conduct was inappropriate, and that it was a breach of professional boundaries for the Registrant to seek that friendship with Colleague C. However, the Panel found that there was not any proper evidential basis on which it could reasonably infer a sexual motivation in this specific conduct.

102. Particular 2 - Without consent the Registrant touched and “pulled” Colleague C. The Panel found that this conduct was not appropriate and it was a breach of professional boundaries to make that physical contact with a colleague without consent. The Panel did not find this was sexual or sexually motivated conduct.

103. Particular 3 - The Panel found that this conduct was inappropriate given its context and subject matter. The Registrant chose to report this incident to Colleague C, a junior, female colleague who was relatively new to the team. She said it was embarrassing and made her uncomfortable. She did not consider it to be sexual and she responded sarcastically.

104. The Panel found that the Registrant had not properly considered how such a comment from a senior, male member of staff would impact on a junior, female colleague. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct was inappropriate in a professional context and that it was a breach of professional boundaries to report such an incident and his impression of it to Colleague C in the manner he did.

105. The Panel did not find the conduct was sexual. The Panel found that there was no proper evidential basis on which it could reasonably infer a sexual motivation in this conduct.

106. Particular 4 – The evidence of Colleague D was accepted. The Panel has found that the Registrant touched Colleague D as alleged and has found sub-particulars 4b) to 4e) proved. This incident took place in the Registrant’s office with the door shut. Colleague D said that she felt “so vulnerable” and felt she had “no control” and wanted to “run out the door”. She reported that he said “why are you like this with me”. She felt he was “insinuating a kiss” and said she was in shock and she “sensed herself having a panic attack”. She was, rightly, concerned that a senior colleague was touching her. She said she was also fearful of losing her job. It appears from that evidence, that Colleague D’s personal circumstances, about which the Registrant was aware, made her somewhat vulnerable at that time.

107. The Panel found that this conduct and behaviour was both inappropriate and was a clear breach of professional boundaries. The Registrant was not in a position as a line manager where it was appropriate to physically assess any colleague, and Colleague D was a junior, female colleague. The Registrant was not employed to medically assess his own staff, his role as a manager would be to refer his staff to Occupational Health, not to personally conduct physical examinations. The Panel found that the Registrant seriously breached professional boundaries by conducting a physical examination of Colleague D. He used his seniority, the inherent power imbalance and, to an extent, the Registrant’s vulnerability to behave as he did and to conduct a physical examination that was not clinically justified or appropriate.

108. The Panel found that there was no clinical justification for the Registrant to assess Colleague D as he did. There was no evidence that the Registrant at any stage offered to provide a chaperone for Colleague D, or any other colleague he examined. The Panel has found that the Registrant touched Colleague C, including feeling her hips, rubbing her thighs and touching her stomach. The Registrant then tried to “cuddle” her. This all took place in the Registrant’s office with the door closed and no one else present.

109. The Panel concluded that the conduct, although not manifestly sexual, was given its nature and the particular circumstances and purposes, sexual. The Panel further found, taking all the circumstances and the context into account, that the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated in that it can reasonably be inferred that he was seeking both sexual gratification and a future sexual relationship by conducting the so-called assessment of Colleague D and touching her. There was no evidence of any plausible, alternative motivation.

110. Particular 5a) – h) – The Panel has found all the sub-particulars proved. The comments made by the Registrant at 5 a) were about Colleague D’s “boobs”. Her evidence was that he would “sexualise” comments and would take advantage of “others niceness”. Taken in the context of the Registrant’s wider conduct and behaviour towards Colleague D, the Panel found that this comment was inappropriate and that it breached professional boundaries. It was a comment by a senior male Colleague about the body of a junior, female colleague. This comment appears to have been made within the first few weeks after Colleague D joined the department.

111. The Panel concluded, in the circumstances and context, that it was a sexual comment. Further, the Panel decided that it was reasonable to infer from the context and the course of conduct by the Registrant, that this comment was sexually motivated. The Registrant was seeking sexual gratification in making that sexualised comment to Colleague D.

112. Particular 5b) - is similar, being the Registrant’s comment about his penis. Both Colleagues A and D recalled this comment. The Panel found that this was an overtly and manifestly sexual comment given that it refers to his penis. It was sexual. In the wider context of his conduct and behaviour towards both of these junior, female colleagues, the Panel was satisfied that it was conduct that was sexually motivated as it can be reasonable inferred from the comment that the Registrant was seeking sexual gratification in making this comment.

113. Particular 5c) - Colleague E reported this in her evidence. She did not think it was appropriate. It is a denigrating phrase and the Panel found that it was an inappropriate and unprofessional way for a senior manager to express himself, even if made in a humorous way. The Panel found that this comment was a breach of professional boundaries. However, having regard to the circumstances (a discussion about work that she was to help him out with alongside his role) the Panel did not find there was evidence that this particular comment was sexual or sexually motivated.

114. Particular 5d), e) & f) - The hug took place during a supervision session between Colleague E and the Registrant in the Registrant’s closed office. Colleague E said that this was not appropriate, was too personal, had felt “weird” and that it crossed a boundary. The Registrant had closed the door of his office and her evidence was that he later massaged her in his locked office when he had also asked her to close her eyes and trust him. Further, he had wanted to know more about her personal life.

115. There was a high level of physicality in the interactions between Colleague E and the Registrant. There was no evidence that the massage was clinically justified, albeit it appears that, to some extent, a level of consent may have been given. The Panel was mindful of the wider context of the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour towards Colleague E. It has found that the Registrant also lifted her top without first asking her consent.

116. The Panel found that there was a proper evidential basis drawn from the evidence of Colleague E, and from the context and circumstances in which the conduct took place, from which it could reasonably infer that the hug, the massage and the lifting of Colleague E’s top were an escalation of the Registrant’s sexually motivated behaviour. The Panel found that all of the conduct proved in this particular, was done by the Registrant in pursuit of sexual gratification. The conduct was also inappropriate and a serious breach of professional boundaries.

117. Particular 5g) & h) - The Panel found that the patting of the head as proved was inappropriate and that it was a breach of professional boundaries. It was done without consent and in an open office when others were present. It was patronising and insulting. It was unwanted. The Panel found that there was insufficient evidence from which to conclude that this particular conduct was sexual or to draw a reasonable inference that this conduct was sexually motivated.

Particular 11

Your conduct in relation to particular 8 was racially motivated.

118. The Panel was mindful of the guidance in the HCPC practice note on state of mind and in the Lambert Simpson case. Having found that these words were said by the Registrant, the Panel asked itself whether:- “(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”

119. At particular 8a), the Panel found that the Registrant stated “I am not racist, but she is Chinese, they are a controlling race. We will see as she may want to run the show.” The comment clearly had a purpose that was referable to race as it refers explicitly to the person being Chinese. It then continues to express a denigrating and insulting opinion about the Chinese. The Panel found that it was a comment about a race that was expressed in a hostile, negative, critical and discriminatory way. The Panel concluded that, whatever the Registrant’s intention may have been, this comment was racist and it was racially motivated. This is found proved.

120. At particular 8b) the Panel found that the Registrant stated “White girls are easy for Indian men”. This comment identifies Indian men and white women. It appears to be referable in part to race, and also to sex.

121. The Panel found that whilst the first part of the Lambert Simpson v HCPC (2023) EWHC 1692 test might be partly satisfied, it was not clear whether the Indian aspect or the white women aspect, including a gender or sex aspect, was the focus of the comment. Further, whilst the comment may be sexist and misogynist in nature, it was not clear that there was hostility or racially discriminatory attitudes displayed in the comment made. The Panel concluded that the comment was crass and sexist but it did not find that it was racially motivated. This is not proved.

Submissions on Grounds and Impairment:

122. Mr Slack reminded the Panel that the issue of misconduct and impairment were matters for its professional judgement and he referred to the relevant case law. Mr Slack submitted that the Registrant had breached a number of parts of the HCPC Standards, as set out in the Case Summary. He submitted those breaches fell significantly short of what was proper and amounted to misconduct.

123. Mr Slack also addressed the Panel on impairment of fitness to practise. He reminded the Panel that it had found both racial and sexual motivation. He submitted that a finding of impairment was required on both public protection and public interest grounds. He referred the Panel to the relevant case law and submitted that a risk of repetition remained and that the findings placed patients at risk of harm. He submitted that there was no evidence of insight or remediation and that the conduct found proved brought the profession into disrepute and breached fundamental tenets of the profession. He sought that the Panel make a finding of current impairment on both public protection and public interest grounds.

Decision on Grounds and Impairment:

124. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred it to the HCPC Practice Note on Impairment and to the relevant case law including Roylance v GMC (no 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 and CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin). He stressed the need to be mindful of the wider public interest.

125. The Panel considered its findings of fact. It has found much of the conduct was sexual and sexually motivated and that the Registrant made a racially motivated comment. The Registrant abused his position as a senior member of staff to engage in a range of inappropriate conduct and behaviours, and to indulge in sexual and sexually motivated conduct towards junior, female colleagues. Further, he breached confidentiality and repeatedly breached professional boundaries.

126. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s conduct was very serious. It would certainly be considered deplorable by a reasonable member of the public and the profession. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct, whether considered individually or together, was serious and fell far short of what would have been proper in the circumstances, and it therefore amounted to misconduct.

127. The Panel also found the Registrant had breached the following parts of the HCPC Standards:

HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics:

Personal and professional behaviour

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

HCPC Standards of proficiency for occupational therapists:

1.1 - identify the limits of their practice and when to seek advice or refer to another professional or service

2. - practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession.

2.1 - maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

5. - recognise the impact of culture, equality and diversity on practice and practise in a non-discriminatory and inclusive manner.

5.7 - recognise that regard to equality, diversity and inclusion needs to be embedded in the application of all HCPC standards, across all areas of practice.

6.2 - understand the principles of information and data governance and be aware of the safe and effective use of health, social care and other relevant information.

7. - communicate effectively.

7.1 - use effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate with service users, carers, colleagues and others.

8. - work appropriately with others.

8.1 - work in partnership with service users, carers, colleagues and others.

8.3 - understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an autonomous practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team.

8.8 - identify their own leadership qualities, behaviours and approaches, taking into account the importance of equality, diversity and inclusion.

8.9 - demonstrate leadership behaviours appropriate to their practice.

8.10 - act as a role model for others.

128. The Panel next considered the issue of whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. It was mindful of the guidance in the Grant case, and the importance of the wider public interest.

129. The Panel considered that the findings are remediable, albeit they are largely attitudinal issues which can be difficult to remediate. The Registrant provided a “rebuttal” statement which largely denies the allegation, but he states that he recognises, with hindsight, that he “should have changed his behaviour when he became team head”. He apologised if he has done anything wrong. He states that he has done a course on clinical reasoning, but that does not deal with the nature of the allegations and the conduct found proved.

130. The Panel found that, beyond some limited reflection into some aspects of his conduct, the Registrant has not demonstrated any meaningful insight into his conduct and behaviour. He has not demonstrated any insight or remediation into his serious and repeated breach of professional boundaries or, significantly, any insight into his sexually and racially motivated behaviour. There is no evidence of remediation of any of the misconduct found.

131. The Panel has found that the Registrant repeated his conduct with several colleagues. That, coupled with the serious lack of insight and remediation into his conduct, led the Panel to conclude that there was a high risk of repetition of the conduct and behaviour found proved. The Panel found that there is a real likelihood of the Registrant repeating his misconduct and so place both colleagues and service users at risk of harm and to breach fundamental tenets of the profession.

132. As regards the wider public interest, the Panel’s findings are serious. The risk of repetition and the breach of fundamental tenets of the profession means that the Registrant’s conduct would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulator.

133. The Panel decided, given the nature and gravity of the misconduct, that not to find the Registrant’s fitness to practise impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession in whom it must be able to have trust and confidence. Not to find current impairment would also fail to declare and uphold proper professional standards.

134. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public interest aspects of impairment.

Decision on Sanction:

135. Mr Slack referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. He submitted paragraphs 130 and 131 regarding a Striking Off Order were relevant given the risk of repetition, lack of remediation and the gravity of the findings. He added that there was a lack of insight and unwillingness to remedy the concerns.

136. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPC Sanctions Policy. He reminded the Panel it must act proportionately and impose the least restrictive sanction that protects the public and the wider public interest.

137. The Panel identified that there were a number of mitigating features, but the Panel found these carried limited weight given the nature of the misconduct:

• A limited apology
• No evidence of previous regulatory findings
• The Registrant reporting that he had some health issues

138. The Panel identified that there were a number of significant, aggravating features:

• Repetition of conduct with more than one member of staff
• The conduct was focussed on junior colleagues
• The Registrant’s seniority and breach of trust
• The conduct was deliberate and pre-meditated
• No evidence of insight into his sexual or racial motivation
• A lack of remediation
• A potential risk of harm to service users

139. The Panel was mindful of paragraphs 76 and 77 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy regarding the seriousness of findings of sexual misconduct.

140. Given the Panel’s findings, it decided that mediation, taking no action or a caution would significantly fail to reflect the nature and gravity of the conduct and behaviour found proved. It was mindful of paragraph 101 on caution orders. None of those factors are engaged in this case. These sanctions would not restrict the Registrant’s practice in any way and would fail to protect the public and the wider public interest.

141. The Panel considered paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy on conditions of practice. It has found a lack of insight and any remediation in respect of the serious findings, which are fundamentally attitudinal in nature. It decided that workable, realistic, verifiable and proportionate conditions of practice could not be devised that would sufficiently or effectively manage the behaviour and conduct. It decided that conditions would fail to protect the public and, further, conditions of practice would fail to maintain public confidence in the profession. There is nothing to suggest that the Registrant would be willing to comply with any conditions.

142. The Panel next considered a suspension order. It was mindful of the factors listed in paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy which will typically be exhibited in cases when a suspension order may be appropriate, as follows:-

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings

143. The Panel has made findings that are serious and breach fundamental tenets of the profession. There is no insight into the sexual misconduct or racial motivation and there is a high risk of repetition. There is nothing before the Panel to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve matters and there is no evidence of remediation or a likelihood of remediation. As a result, the Panel decided that suspension was not an appropriate or proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case.

144. The Panel considered paragraphs 130 – 131 of the Sanctions Policy. Many of the factors for striking off are engaged in this case. There was a failure to work in partnership, discrimination, abuse of professional position and sexual misconduct. There is little reflection and no insight into the most serious aspects of the misconduct, namely the sexual misconduct and racial motivation. The Panel has found very little evidence to suggest any willingness to resolve or remediate matters.

145. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that this is a case where paragraph 131 applies, that is that a striking off order is appropriate and proportionate. 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.

146. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Striking Off Order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Edwin V Bedford from the Register on the day this Order comes into effect.

Interim Suspension Order

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 Edwin V Bedford

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
12/02/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off