HCPTS |

Profession: Hearing aid dispenser

Registration Number: HAD04097

Interim Order: Imposed on 08 Jan 2026

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 22/07/2025 End: 17:00 22/07/2025

Location: Held via virtual video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

Allegation

As a registered Hearing Aid Dispenser (HAD04097):

On 13 August 2024 you were convicted at Southampton Magistrates’ Court of:

a. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 93 Category A images of a child;

b. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 52 Category C images of a child;

c. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 71 Prohibited Images of a child;

d. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 91 Category B images of a child.

2. By reason of the matter set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction.

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing (hereafter ‘the notice’) had been sent by email, on 10 April 2025, to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied that the notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’).

Proceeding in absence of the Registrant

3. Mr Irving, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as permitted by Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, he drew the Panel’s attention to an email from the Registrant, dated 28 June 2025, addressed to the HCPTS, in which the Registrant stated the following:

‘… I have already provided these same details to multiple other correspondents from both HCPTS and Blake Morgan.

The following statement can be provided to the panel:

For the sake of my mental health, I will not be attending the hearing nor will I be represented.

I am fully aware of the crime I committed as well as the consequences, and have been rightfully punished by the courts. I take full responsibility for my actions. I did not search for these images nor contacted anyone with the intent to find these images, but instead came across them via links sent in safe and legal forums.

Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that in order to feel some kind of emotion in my worst point in life, I favoured the guilt and let myself see some of the most disgusting images instead of reacting as any sensible person would and reporting the material immediately then leaving it well alone.

I am absolutely confident if I was in any other and better point in my life, I would never have let myself do what I did. Because I let myself view these, I have since been punished and will live with this guilt for the rest of my life.

I agree that being struck off the register would be an appropriate consequence. While I have no intentions of ever returning to healthcare work again, it makes sense for public confidence in safety to prevent me from doing so even if I changed my mind.

I have since surrounded myself with the support network I desperately needed around the time of my offence, and have been working hard on a new direction away from trouble to atone and move on as a good person.

Kind regards,

Alga Mau.’

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPC Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

5. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:

a) the Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Rules and the Registrant had been afforded with over three months’ notice of this hearing;

b) the Panel noted that there has been no application to adjourn and the email from the Registrant, outlined above, provides no indication that the Registrant would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing the Substantive Hearing would serve no useful purpose and the Panel was of the view that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings;

c) the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had an opportunity to attend and/or make detailed written representations and he had not done so (save for those outlined above); and

d) as this is a Substantive Hearing there is a strong public interest in ensuring that it is considered expeditiously. It is also in the Registrant’s own interest that the Allegation is heard as soon as possible.

Background

6. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Hearing Aid Dispenser (‘HAD’).

7. On 12 January 2023, the HCPC received a referral from Southampton LADO in relation to the Registrant. The referral provided information that on 9 January 2023, the Hampshire Constabulary informed the LADO that the Registrant had been arrested for the possession of indecent images of children.

8. On 13 August 2024, at Southampton Magistrates’ Court, the Registrant was convicted of making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely:

• 93 Category A images;

• 52 Category C images;

• 71 Prohibited images; and

• 91 Category B images.

9. On 03 September 2024, the Registrant was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to 10-months imprisonment, suspended for two years; rehabilitation activity; 100 hours of unpaid work; and a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years and DBS barring.

Decision on Facts

10. Mr Irving opened and summarised the HCPC’s case. In doing so, he outlined that the HCPC relied upon the certificate of conviction, as proof of the Registrant’s conviction, along with the other documents contained within the HCPC bundle, which included the Crown Court Judge’s sentencing remarks and the Registrant’s admissions. He also informed the Panel that the HCPC did not intend to call any witnesses in this case.

Panel’s Approach

11. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything, and the individual Particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

12. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundle, as well as the oral submissions made by Mr Irving.

13. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes: “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and “Admissions”.

Particular 1

‘As a registered Hearing Aid Dispenser (HAD04097):

1. On 13 August 2024 you were convicted at Southampton Magistrates’ Court of:

a. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 93 Category A images of a child;

b. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 52 Category C images of a child;

c. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 71 Prohibited Images of a child;

d. making indecent photographs / pseudo-photographs of a child, namely 91 Category B images of a child.’

14. The Panel had regard to the Rules and in particular Rule 10 (1)(d) which, in terms of the evidence required to prove a conviction, states: “where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based”.

15. The Panel accepted the documentary evidence, noting the Certificate of Conviction contained within the HCPC documentary bundle. The Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s response to the Allegation and his admissions outlined therein. In addition, the Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s email, as outlined above, in which the Registrant accepted his convictions. The Panel was therefore satisfied, to the required standard, that the facts were proved.

16. Accordingly, Particular 1 was found proved in its entirety.

Decision on Grounds

17. The Panel next considered the statutory grounds. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

18. The Panel was satisfied that a conviction is one of the statutory grounds under Article 22(1)(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and was made out in this case.

Decision on Impairment

19. The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

20. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’.

21. The Panel considered all of the evidence before it, including the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundle, the oral submissions made by Mr Irving, on behalf of the HCPC, and the written submissions made by the Registrant (as outlined above).

22. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.

23. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable, now and in the future, to repeat conduct of the kind that led to his conviction. In reaching its decision the Panel had particular regard to the issues of insight, remorse and remediation.

24. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) Mrs Justice Cox stated:

“When considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue.”

25. The Panel also had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:

• whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;

• whether it has been remedied; and

• whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

26. The Panel noted that since the matter was referred to the HCPC, the Registrant has not provided the Panel with submissions to persuade it that he has sufficient insight, remorse and remediation. The Panel also noted that the Registrant’s convictions related to matters which could be considered to be deplorable and attitudinal in nature. In this respect, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct was not easily remediable. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not come before his regulator to explain his conduct and the circumstances that led to his convictions.

27. In considering the Registrant’s remorse and insight, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s written submissions (outlined above). In doing so, the Panel noted that whilst the Registrant had acknowledged his wrongdoing and had entered an early guilty plea at Winchester Crown Court, he had not expressed any remorse for the harm caused as a result of his actions. Further, in the Panel’s view, whilst the Registrant’s written submissions outlined that he accepted the criminal sanctions imposed upon him by the Crown Court and also outlined some steps that he had taken to prevent recurrence of his actions, his submissions failed to recognise or acknowledge the harm that his actions had caused on his victims or on the public perception of the profession. In this respect, the Panel considered that the Registrant had not demonstrated any remorse and that his submissions lacked insight.

28. In respect of its consideration of the risk of repetition, whilst the Panel had regard to His Honour Judge Taylor’s sentencing remarks when he stated ‘I am sure I will not see you here again’, and that the Registrant had indicated that he now has a support network around him which was lacking at the time he committed the offences, the Panel also noted that it had no independent evidence, from the Registrant, to attest to this or the steps allegedly taken by him to ensure that there was not a recurrence of his actions. Consequently, the Panel concluded that it could not be assured that the Registrant’s actions would not be repeated and this, in the Panel’s view, placed the public at risk of harm from the Registrant.

29. Taking all of these things together, and in the absence of up-to-date information on the Registrant’s current situation, the Panel was of the view that it was unable to conclude that the Registrant had demonstrated any insight or remorse in respect of the conduct which led to his convictions, nor could it be satisfied that he would not repeat the behaviour which led to his convictions. The Panel thereby determined that there remained a risk of repetition and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

30. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds.

31. In relation to the public component of fitness to practise, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public policy issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:

“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

32. The Panel had no doubt that in the circumstances of this case, the reasonably informed member of the public would consider the Registrant’s conviction to be extremely serious and deplorable in nature because he has been convicted of making indecent images of children on multiple occasions. Consequently, the Panel was of the view that the Registrant has breached a fundamental tenet of the profession.

33. The Panel was also of the view that the public have to be able to trust healthcare professionals and the Panel was satisfied that the public would determine that it could no longer trust the Registrant. Further, the Panel also considered that public trust and confidence in the wider profession, alongside the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case. The Registrant’s sentence, from Winchester Crown Court included a suspended custodial sentence, unpaid work for twelve months and he had also been made the subject of a ten-year sexual offences register requirement, which is not due to expire until 2034. In these circumstances, the Panel considered that an informed member of the public would have no confidence in such a professional and the Registrant’s actions undermined the public’s confidence in the Hearing Aid Dispenser profession.

34. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on the public component.

Submissions

35. After being afforded with time to consider the Panel’s determination, Mr Irving stated that the HCPC did not make any formal submissions on sanction, but would draw the Panel’s attention to the following:

i. the Registrant lacked insight and remorse;

ii. the Registrant’s acknowledgement that he is likely to be struck off from the HCPC Register; and

iii. the Panel should have regard to the Sanctions Policy and in particular paragraphs 78, 79, 87, 88 and 89.

Decision on Sanction

36. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Irving, together with the Registrant’s written submissions. The Panel also referred to the ‘Sanctions Policy’ issued by the HCPC.

37. The Panel had in mind the fact that the purpose of sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

38. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be:

• the Registrant’s convictions are for extremely serious matters (making indecent photographs of children);

• the nature of images viewed, included moving images and involved very young children;

• the Registrant repeatedly engaged in his criminal conduct for a duration of approximately two years before being apprehended; and

• the Registrant lacks insight and has failed to express remorse to this Panel for his actions.

39. The Panel considered the following mitigating factors:

• no previous disciplinary record in his career as a Hearing Aid Dispenser; and

• the Registrant had made early admissions before the Crown Court, avoiding the need for a criminal trial.

40. In light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action as this would not protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel, nor would taking no action uphold the public’s confidence in the regulator or the profession.

41. The Panel then considered whether to caution the Registrant. The Panel was of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this case. The Panel also had regard to the Sanctions Policy and noted that the Registrant’s conduct was not isolated, limited in nature or ‘relatively minor’. Further, the Panel had also determined that the Registrant had not demonstrated any insight and also that there was a risk of repetition. Whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant had allegedly engaged in some therapy, because the Registrant lacked the necessary insight in respect of his conduct, the Panel considered that he was unable to remedy his conduct. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its regulator, would be undermined if such behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.

42. Additionally, the Panel had regard to paragraphs 79 and 85 of the Sanctions Policy which state:

Paragraph 79:

‘Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice’

Paragraph 85:

‘Although inclusion on the sex offender’s database is not a punishment, it does serve to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. A panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in or return to unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offender’s database’

43. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel therefore concluded that a caution was also not the appropriate sanction as it would permit the Registrant to remain in unrestricted practice.

44. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. In doing so, the Panel had regard to paragraph 106 of the HCPC ‘Sanctions Guidance’, which states:

‘106. A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

• the registrant has insight;

• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;

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

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

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

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

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

45. As identified at the impairment stage, the Registrant’s conduct is of a kind that would be difficult to remedy and having carefully considered this option the Panel concluded that conditions of practice are not appropriate or workable in this case. In forming this view, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s lack of insight and its concerns regarding the risk of repetition of the Registrant’s conduct. Given that the Registrant’s criminal convictions relate to conduct in his personal life, which the Panel considered could be considered to be attitudinal in nature, the Panel determined that there were no appropriate or workable conditions of practice which could be imposed to address the risks identified in this case.

46. Further, the Panel also noted paragraph 108 of Sanctions Policy states that conditions of practice would be unlikely to be appropriate in cases concerning indecent images of children. Hearing Aid Dispensers are, ordinarily, required to work autonomously with members of the public and this could include treatment of children and/or vulnerable adults. The Panel therefore could not conceive of any conditions of practice which would be appropriate, relevant, practicable or workable in this case.

47. The Panel next considered whether a Suspension Order or a Striking-off Order would be appropriate. In doing so, the Panel had regard to Paragraph 121 of the ‘Sanctions Guidance’ which states:

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

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

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

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

48. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct represented a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. Additionally, for the aforementioned reasons, the Panel considered that the Registrant has not demonstrated sufficient insight into his conduct nor was it satisfied that his conduct would not be repeated or that the Registrant was capable of remedying his conduct. Consequently, the Panel considered that a suspension order was not appropriate.

49. The Panel next considered paragraphs 130 and 131 of the ‘Sanctions Guidance’ and noted paragraph 131 states the following:

‘131. A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:

• lacks insight;

• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or

• is unwilling to resolve matters.’

50. Having done so, the Panel determined that a Striking-Off Order was the appropriate order. In forming this view, the Panel had regard to the seriousness of the Registrant’s convictions, the Registrant’s lack of insight, together with very limited evidence that the behaviour would not be repeated. Consequently, the Panel considered that the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking-Off Order. In doing so, the Panel took into account the Registrant’s written submissions to it (outlined above), where he indicated that he should not practise again as a healthcare professional. Whilst the Panel also acknowledged the impact that this decision would have on the Registrant, it concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed the Registrant’s interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public or uphold public confidence in the Hearing Aid Dispenser profession or in the regulatory process.

51. Accordingly, the Panel makes a Striking-off Order.

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Alga Mau from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.
Interim Order
Application

1. Mr Irving made an application for an 18-month Interim Suspension Order, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001 to cover any appeal period.

Decision

2. The Panel makes an 18-month Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel considered that it was necessary to do so to protect members of the public and to uphold and protect the public interest. The Panel considered that to do otherwise would not be in accordance with its earlier findings and for the same reasons, the Panel also considered that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate.
3. This order will expire upon:
• (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; OR
• (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.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Alga Mau

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
22/07/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off