Ashley Dixon

Profession: Operating department practitioner

Registration Number: ODP039981

Interim Order: Imposed on 25 Jan 2025

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 14/07/2025 End: 17:00 15/07/2025

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 Operating Department Practitioner (ODP039981):

  1. On 29 March 2023 at Bolton Combined Court Centre you were convicted of:

a. Stalking involving fear of violence: Between 25/10/2022 and 03/03/2023 at Salford your course of conduct amounted to stalking and caused Person A to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence would be used against her when you knew or ought to have known that your course of conduct would cause fear of violence to Person A on each occasion in that sending emails, messages and attending the home address of the victim over the course of several months.. Contrary to section 4A(1)(a)(b)(i) and (5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

b. Assault by beating: On 27/01/2023 at Salford assaulted Person A by beating her contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

c. Harassment without violence: Between 25/10/2022 and 03/03/2023 at Salford pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of Person A and which you knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of her in that entered apartment black without invite then forced entry to her apartment. Contrary to section 2(1) and 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

d. Obstruct / resist a constable in execution of duty: On or in 28 January 2023 at Salford resisted Person B a constable in the execution of her duty.

2. On 13 November 2023 at Manchester City Magistrates' Court you were convicted of:

a. Stalking involving serious alarm / distress: Between 17/07/2023 and 10/11/2023 at BOLTON pursued a course of conduct, namely Sent texts and emails, which amounted to stalking causing Person A serious alarm or distress, which had a substantial adverse effect on her usual day-to-day activities when you knew or ought to have known that your course of conduct would cause alarm or distress. Contrary to section 4A (1)(a)(b)(ii) and (5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

b. Harassment – breach of a restraining order on conviction: Between 30/04/2023 at 10/11/2023 without reasonable excuse, you contacted Person A which you were prohibited from doing by a restraining order under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020, imposed by Manchester and Salford Magistrates court on 19/04/2023. Contrary to section 363(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act 2020.

3. On 2 July 2024 at Wigan Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of:

a. Harassment – breach of a restraining order on conviction: Between 23/04/2023 and 12/05/2024 at Bolton, Greater Manchester without reasonable excuse, you contacted the victim from a withheld number which you were prohibited from doing by a restraining order under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020, imposed by Bolton Crown Court on 29/02/2024. Contrary to section 363(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act 2020.

b. Harassment without violence: Between 23 Apr 2024 and 12 May 2024 at Bolton pursued a course of conduct which amounted to the harassment of Person A and which you knew or ought to have known amounted to the harassment of her in that you made several unwanted telephone calls to her.

c. Harassment – breach of a restraining order on conviction: Between 23 Apr 2024 and 12 May 2024 at Bolton without reasonable excuse, you Unwanted telephone calls which you were prohibited from doing by a restraining order under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020, imposed by Manchester Magistrates court on 19/04/23.

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

Finding

Preliminary Matters

Hearing in Private

1. The Registrant made an application for the hearing to be heard in private, as there would be reference to elements of his health and private life. The HCPC considered that when and to the degree that there would be references to matters of a personal nature they could be heard in private, however, the remainder of the hearing, relating to the Registrant’s conduct and convictions should be heard in public.

2. The Panel sought and accepted legal advice which included reference to the basic principle that there should be open justice and referred the Panel to the relevant rule, which gave it the power to hear all or part of the hearing in private.

3. The Panel noted from the paperwork before it that there was reference to matters which would attract privilege and should not be considered in open session. The Panel therefore agreed, that when and where there were issues of such a nature they would be heard and considered in private. The Panel would therefore provide public and private copies of its determination.

Erroneous reference within the Certificate of Conviction

4. The Panel noted, that the HCPC’s allegation set out at 3(a) above is a complete replication of the wording within the Certificate of Conviction, the document relied upon by the HCPC as evidence of the Conviction. The Panel noted that there was an administrative error within that document in that there was a reference to the start of the period as being in 2023, when in fact it should be a reference to 2024.

5. The HCPC’s position was that, in relation to the documentation, which included an inaccuracy in relation to the year, it was not making an application for amendment as the rules require the allegation to be as stated within that Certificate.

6. The Panel sought the Legal Assessors advice. Her advice identified three options. First, to do nothing as it was accepted that this had to be an error and made no material difference. Secondly, note within the determination that this mistake had been identified. Thirdly, exercise its discretion to amend the Allegation by, for instance, inserting within brackets an acknowledgement that this was as recorded within the document but erroneously referred to the wrong year.

7. The Panel considered that it would take the second course and note within its determination that this was an error on the face of the document. The Panel considered whether there was any prejudice to the Registrant by not changing to the wording of the allegation. For instance, would anyone making reference only to the terms of the allegation be misled to believe that the course of conduct had been for a longer period than it was. However, the Panel concluded that any fully informed person reading this determination would appreciate that this was not the case. The Panel in reaching this conclusion took into account that overall, the period of conduct adopted by the Registrant had in fact spanned a much longer period dating from October 2022 to May 2024.

Background

8. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner.

First group of offences

9. The Registrant and the complainant (Person A) met in August 2021 and began a romantic relationship which lasted for a period of 18 (intermittent) months. According to Person A, during this time, the Registrant subjected Person A to domestic abuse. During the course of the relationship, the Registrant was unfaithful to Person A and the relationship ended abruptly.

10. On 29 March 2023, the Registrant was convicted of the following offences:

i. Stalking;

ii Assault by beating;

iii. Harassment without violence;

iv. Obstruct/resist a police constable in execution of duty.

11. The commission of this offence entailed making multiple social media posts directed to Person A, sending unsolicited messages to her phone, phoning Person A several times from a withheld number, sending several emails and attending Person A’s home address and refusing to leave. This offence also involved failing to co-operate with police officers when they attended the address in order to arrest the Registrant.

12. As a result of this, the Registrant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months and a restraining order prohibiting direct or indirect contact with Person A and also prohibiting the Registrant from entering the area that Person A resides. Approximately two weeks after the restraining order was imposed, the order was breached. In terms of the nature of the breach, the Registrant made a number of posts on social media referring to Person A and stating that the Registrant loved her and that he wanted to propose to her in Barbados.

Second group of offences

13. Following this conduct, the Registrant pleaded guilty and was subsequently convicted on 13 November 2023 of the following offences:

i. Stalking involving serious alarm and/or distress x 2;

ii. Harassment (breach of restraining order on conviction).

14. These offences entailed subjecting (Person A) to approximately 11 unwanted phone calls from a withheld number.

15. The Registrant was committed for Sentence at Bolton Crown Court. His sentencing hearing took place on 29 February 2024. At this time, the Registrant was sentenced to 12 months immediate custody for each of the stalking offences (these sentences were ordered to run concurrently to each other) and a further 4 months of immediate custody for the breach of restraining order. This sentence was ordered to run consecutively so that the total sentence was 16 months. At this time, a restraining order was also imposed which prohibited the Registrant from attending any location that he knows or believes Person A to be residing, working or visiting. At the hearing, the judge indicated that the term of this restraining order was to be indefinite.

Third group of offences

16. The Registrant was tried in relation to further offences on 2 July 2024 at Wigan Magistrates’ Court. The Registrant pleaded not guilty to all offences, however, he was found guilty of the following offences at trial (pages 87 to 96):

i. Harassment breach of restraining order on conviction (22 April 2024);

ii. Harassment breach of restraining order on conviction (23 April 2024);

iii. Harassment without violence (23 April 2024).

17. Following the Registrant’s convictions on these dates, on 13 September 2024, he was sentenced to 18 months custody for the first offence of ‘harassment breach of restraining order on conviction.’ The court imposed no separate penalty for the remaining convictions.

18. The Registrant appealed against his conviction. This appeal was heard on 13 December 2024. The basis of this appeal was that the Registrant admitted calls were made from his phone to Person A but disputed that they were intentional. The Registrant’s appeal was unsuccessful, and the conviction and sentence (imposed in the magistrates’ court) were upheld by the Recorder presiding over the case.

19. The Registrant was released on 11 June 2025 on ‘licence’ and remains the subject of the Restraining Order.

Admissions

20. The Panel noted that the Registrant had made factual admissions to all parts of allegations 1, 2 and 3. The Panel also noted, that in relation to his appeal, he had pleaded not guilty, not on a factual basis, but on the basis that for reasons unknown to him, those messages had been sent without his knowledge through some electronic communication between his Apple watch and mobile. He had, he believed deleted the contact details of the female, however some stored historic connections may have been retained.

21. The Panel noted within its decision today, related to the fact of convictions made in three Court proceedings, the acceptance of admissions on a factual basis was not relevant. However, to ensure that there was complete understanding of the terms and nature of the admissions, things which might be taken into account later in the hearing, the Panel considered the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Admissions. This states at paragraph 6:

‘A registrant makes an admission when they accept or admit that they have done or failed to do what is alleged against them. It is therefore essential that a Registrant fully understands what the allegation is and the implications of admitting it. Registrants may admit all or some of the factual particulars which comprise the allegation.’

At paragraph 9:

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

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

22. The Panel is content that the Registrant, although unrepresented, has understood the nature of the matters alleged against him, and has a full understanding that within this arena of regulatory law, his admissions will have some relevance as an acknowledgment and acceptance of his previous conduct even if factually the matters are made out by evidence of the conviction.

23. The Panel also noted the guidance within paragraph 10, set out below, as this was of relevance in this instance where there have been three stages to the conduct and to be some representations of changed conduct.

‘It remains important that the Panel is provided, notwithstanding any admissions, with all relevant information to enable them to understand the context and seriousness of a case, so that even when facts are admitted, the Panel can make informed decisions regarding impairment and sanction.’

Evidence of conviction placed before the Panel

24. To support its case, the HCPC provided the Panel with the following:

Allegation 1

• A memorandum of conviction dated 6 November 2023;

• A police case summary, which sets out the evidence that underpins the above-mentioned convictions.

Allegation 2

• A Certificate of Conviction dated 9 April 2024;

• The transcript from the Crown Court proceedings.

Allegation 3

• A Certificate of Conviction dated 16 September 2024.

• A police case summary which identifies the evidence that underpins the above-mentioned conviction.

• The transcript from the appeal hearing in which the Registrant unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction.

Panel decision

25. The Panel took and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted the HCPC’s submissions. It accepted the documentary evidence of the convictions. The Panel has concluded that the facts have been established and the evidential burden upon the HCPC has been discharged.

HCPC representations on grounds

26. The HCPC reminded the Panel that the statutory ground in this case is ‘conviction.’ This means that other than adducing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a conviction has taken place, the HCPC does not have to meet any further criteria for the statutory ground to be established.

27. The HCPC commended to the Panel the following extracts of the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Convictions and Cautions:

• Paragraph 12: ‘The Panel rules provide that: 3 September 2024 “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’”;

• Paragraph 14: ‘In all three UK jurisdictions, evidence that a person has been convicted of an offence is generally admissible in civil proceedings as proof that the person concerned committed that offence, regardless of whether or not the person pleaded guilty to that offence’;

• Paragraph 15: ‘Consequently, in considering conviction allegations, Panels must be careful not to ‘go behind’ a conviction and seek to re-try the criminal case.’

Decision on grounds

28. The Panel took into account the HCPC representations, accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and noted the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled convictions.

29. The Panel gave careful consideration to the documentation placed before it, and came to the conclusion that the statutory ground has been made out on all three allegations.

Decision on Impairment

Registrant’s representations

30. The Registrant had provided the Panel with a bundle of documents which extended to 77 pages. This bundle included:

  • details of training the Registrant had undertaken:
    - Conflict Management (October 2023);
    - [redacted] (October 2023);
    - De-escalating hostile or challenging behaviour (April 2024);
    - Domestic Abuse (May 2024)
    - [redacted] (May 2024).
  • webpage photos of the fund raising and awareness work the Registrant had undertaken;
  • [redacted];
  • personal character references; and,
  • a lengthy piece of reflective writing.

31. The Registrant confirmed that he had been allowed out of prison on licence on 11 June 2025. [Redacted].

32. The Registrant read a handwritten note of matters he wished to address and highlighted his remorse and regret for his actions and the impact it had on others, including taking up the time and energies of the HCPC with this hearing process. The Registrant acknowledged that his behaviour had fallen below what was expected of him and that at the time of these events he was not thinking clearly [redacted].

33. The Registrant told the Panel that he had the support of his family and the local community, all of whom were aware of the Registrant’s previous criminal convictions. He stated that his Probation Officer was very pleased with his progress. [Redacted]. The Registrant stated that he loved his profession and wished to return to helping people and making them well: he has never intended or wished to hurt people.

34. The Registrant [redacted] stated that he now understood that domestic violence extended beyond physical contact and included emotional and mental abuse.

35. [Redacted].

36. [Redacted].

HCPC representations on Impairment

37. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant is impaired on the public component and it is open to the Panel to find that the Registrant is also impaired on the personal component. The HCPC identified information which the Panel may wish to take into account whilst considering the personal and the public components of its decision.

Personal component

38. The Registrant has expressed an awareness that his behaviour falls below the standard expected of him. Furthermore, he has expressed remorse for his actions during the fitness to practise proceedings. The Registrant has listed several ‘protective factors’ such as lifestyle changes he has adopted, and that he has the support of family and friends. The Panel may be of the view that the presence of these factors decreases the likelihood of the Registrant reoffending.

39. [Redacted].

40. [Redacted].

41. The Panel may note that a similar submission was made in mitigation at the Registrant’s sentencing hearing on 29 February 2024. At this hearing, the Registrant was being sentenced by the Judge for stalking involving serious alarm or distress and breach of restraining order. At this time, the Judge noted that:

‘there is quite a lot of information before me to suggest that prior [redacted] he had an issue with entitlement towards females, and he had an issue in relation to accepting ‘no’ when it is said to him.' [Redacted].

Public component

42. The HCPC aims to protect the public and maintain public confidence. The Registrant has committed several very serious offences. Many of these offences involve a form of violence. These offences span an approximately 18-month time frame. In addition to this, one or more of these offences involve at least one breach of a restraining order, (a measure which is used by the court to protect complainants.) The Registrant’s decision to breach the restraining order indicates that in the past, the Registrant has shown a flagrant disregard for authority. The fact that the Registrant has breached a restraining order is exacerbated by the fact that at least one of these breaches occurred a short time after he had been released from custody (where he was serving a sentence for another offence.)

43. In the Registrant’s written statement, he states that ‘the concept of breaching my restraining order became normalised as Person A adamantly reaffirmed that I would not get into any trouble.’ It is submitted that the Panel ought to reject this explanation. It is likely that the terms of the Restraining Order would have been explained to the Registrant whilst in court by the learned judge and that the consequences of breaching the restraining order would have been explained to the Registrant by his legal counsel. In fact, the Panel noted that there was a letter in the final hearing bundle from the Registrant’s legal representative which fully explained both the terms of the order and consequences of breaching it.

44. The Registrant has attempted to demonstrate that he has successfully remediated, however, it is possible that the Registrant’s conduct is underpinned by attitudinal issues which are often harder to remediate. As a result of this, the Panel cannot be assured that the Registrant will not behave in this way in the future. This factor indicates that the Registrant poses a real risk to members of the public.

45. In addition to this, as a result of one or more of the Registrant’s convictions which occurred on 2nd July 2024, on 13 September 2024, the Registrant was sentenced to an 18-month custodial term. Therefore, as 18 months has not elapsed since this sentence was imposed, the Registrant is on licence and may be recalled to prison if any of the conditions of his licence are breached.

46. It should be noted that the Registrant is also subject to an indefinite post-conviction order (namely a Restraining Order).

Panel decision

47. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the terms of the guidance given within the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Fitness to Practise: Impairment. The Panel appreciated that at this stage there is no burden on the HCPC and the onus of demonstrating fitness to practise lies with the Registrant. That assessment of the Registrant’s ability to work safely and effectively as an autonomous practitioner is as of today.

48. The Panel appreciated that this assessment of the Registrant’s current ability will take into account and reflect past conduct, as well as an assessment of likely future behaviour. In other words, would the Registrant’s previous behaviour be repeated in the future. The Panel accepted that there were two components of this assessment, the personal and the public and started its deliberations with the personal element.

49. In relation to the question of whether the Registrant’s previous behaviour was capable of remedy, the Panel concluded that this was not the case. The repetitive nature of the three allegations over a period of 18 months, resulting in three convictions which were coupled with the underlying elements of disrespect for the complainant and the criminal law process could not be remedied.

50. [Redacted].

51. [Redacted].

52. [Redacted] the Panel noted the Judge on 29 February 2024 at the trial stated:

“…[Redacted] the problem is with your underlying attitudes towards women, which have been in existence for a long time.”

53. The Panel considered that the Registrant had not demonstrated any real understanding or compassion of the impact of his behaviour on Person A, either in his written submissions or verbal testimony. It appeared to the Panel that the Registrant had in some part sought to blame the complainant for his actions and for breaching the Restraining Order. [Redacted]. There was therefore in the Panel’s view a likelihood of such behaviour being repeated should there be a further similar scenario.

54. In terms of whether the Registrant’s attempts at remediation have been successful, the Panel noted that the courses: Conflict Management (October 2023); [redacted]; and De-escalating hostile or challenging behaviour (April 2024), all predate his reoffending behaviour that led to his third conviction and so are not evidence that those courses had led to changes in the Registrant’s behaviour.

55. In this regard the Panel noted that at his trial on 29 April 2024, the Judge stated:

“I have read the pre-sentence report and you have little insight into your behaviour according to the author. You have a sense of entitlement towards your domestic partners. This offending took place whilst you were paying lip service to rehabilitation efforts in relation to your suspended sentence order and, sadly, the evidence is order that efforts to assist you to gain insight have failed. The Building Better Relationships programme, although completed, has not worked.”

56. The course on Domestic Abuse [redacted] (May 2024) post-dated the final series of events and the Registrant has spoken of how he has gained some further understanding of domestic abuse from that course [redacted]. Other courses undertaken that post-date the events, include: Changing Thinking, Ending Violence Programme (6-23 August 2024); Restorative Justice and Victim Awareness Programme (September 2024) and Building Healthy Relationships (March 2025). These courses were all undertaken whilst in prison.

57. The Registrant stated that he is an entirely changed person now as a result. However, the impact of these courses is not known because the Registrant was only released 4.5 weeks ago. The Panel therefore has little evidence to support that there has been a change in his behaviour and based on evidence of the impact of previous training, little confidence in a sustained change in behaviour.

58. The Registrant stated that his Probation Officer was satisfied with his progress however this Panel have nothing from that source in support of the Registrant’s submission that he is a changed man. This was particularly so, as the Panel was aware that the Registrant previously breached the restraining order twice within weeks, once after the restraining order was imposed and second after his release from prison. The Panel therefore have little confidence this behaviour will not be repeated.

59. The evidence the Panel had of any training related to his practice as an ODP was supplied by the Registrant and this predates the three convictions. There is no evidence of any appropriate ODP training being undertaken since.

60. The Panel considered generally that it was too early for it to be able to assess whether the Registrant’s steps at remediation had been successful and only time would support a finding that there had been a pivotal change resulting from his convictions and rehabilitation. [Redacted]. Therefore, on the personal component, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the Registrant returning to unrestricted practice. Indeed, the Registrant may not return to unrestricted practice due to his unspent conviction.

61. Finally, the Panel noted the character references supplied by the Registrant which appear to be dated and prepared for his appeal hearing. They were therefore not prepared for, and with knowledge of, these regulatory proceedings and were some years old. The Panel therefore gave them little or no weight.

62. Turning to the public component of the Panel decision it was appreciated that [redacted] the three convictions were matters outside of the workplace.

63. The Panel noted that currently the Registrant has been allowed out of prison on licence, and should he breach the terms of that licence he could be physically returned to prison. Until the term of his conviction is spent, which is some months’ time, the Registrant is unable to seek work and according to the current HCPTS guidance, and case law, should not be allowed to return to practice until his criminal conviction is spent. On this basis alone, a finding of current impairment on the public component could be supported.

64. Significant and emotional harm was caused by the Registrant to Person A. Person A was also subject to physical harm. The imposition of a Restraining Order by the court, initially for three years, was then breached, and imposed for an indefinite period. This demonstrated the degree of harm and the ongoing risk to Person A by the Registrant.

65. In assessing public reaction, to the Registrant’s behaviour the Panel noted and sets out below the further comments of the Sentencing Judge’s remarks 29 February 2024:

“You were released from custody on around 18 April of last year, and within two weeks you were breaking the orders of that court. You were contacting the complainant on social media, and although initially you were just making protestations of love that were, undoubtedly irritating and a nuisance, by mid-June you were becoming aggressive, berating her, effectively, for not obeying you. Unfortunately, she finally decided to meet with you in July 2023, effectively to ask you to leave her alone. Following that meeting you continued, on some occasions bombarding her with fifty emails in a day, calling her names and by November, turning up at her home. I have read her victim impact statement and although your contact with her has not been particularly volent [sic] or threatening, it must have had a catastrophic impact on her daily life for over seven months… your behaviour has caused the complainant to want to move home, and the fact that there were efforts, albeit of a low level, made to persuade her against any complaint… Applying the Sentencing Guidelines as must, in relation to stalking in my judgment this is a culpability B offence. There is a high degree of planning using multiple methods and it was prolonged. The harm is a category 2 harm. In relation to the breach of restraining order, it is a culpability A breach, again category 2 harm, both of which are against a background of domestic violence and a suspended sentence order. I do take the view that there are elements of this offending that indicate a very high level of culpability.”

66. In the Panel’s view these comments would cause members of the public to be rightly concerned. The Registrant’s reputation and that of his profession would be rightly undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the wider public interest. Failure to impose a marque of censure would also undermine the regulatory process and the reputation of the HCPC.

Decision on Sanction

HCPC submissions

67. At this sanction stage the HCPC does not usually suggest any particular level of sanction, but in this case, where the Panel’s findings are that there had been a sustained pattern of unacceptable behaviour that resulted in three criminal convictions the Panel’s sanction decision will no doubt reflect this.

68. The HCPC reminded the Panel that the Registrant’s insight into his actions had not included an appreciation of the impact his conduct had upon the profession, his regulatory and the public confidence in those bodies.

69. The HCPTS Sanctions Policy identifies what features would be considered as serious aggravating factors and, in this case, that of a criminal conviction is applicable. The Panel will take into account the lack of remediation of the Registrant’s behaviour.

70. The Registrant has expressed his remorse, and accepted the falling short of the standard expected The Registrant has stated that he deeply regrets his actions and the embarrassment he has caused for his family.

71. The Panel will take into account the fact that the Registrant has shown limited insight into his behaviour, but there is a lack of understanding and compassion for the complainant.

72. [Redacted].

Registrant’s submissions

73. The Registrant stated that this was the first time he had been before his regulator. [Redacted].

74. [Redacted]. The Registrant restated that there was, in his view, no basis for the statement made by the judge of underlying attitudinal issues.

75. In terms of his breach of the restraining order, he appreciated that he had not acted in his best interests. [Redacted].

Panel’s decision

76. The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor that its task at this stage was to balance the wider public interest with those of the Registrant. Sanctions were not intended to be a punishment, but the imposition of the minimum restriction on the Registrant’s practice that will ensure continued public protection. The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor to refer to, and take into account during its deliberations, the guidance contained within the HCPTS’s Sanctions Policy. She identified elements of that guidance that would assist the Panel in making its decision as to the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

77. The Panel appreciated that any sanction imposed should maintain the public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, as well as act as a deterrent to fellow practitioners not to act in the same way.

78. As to what would be the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, the Panel started its deliberations by identifying the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case.

79. In relation to mitigating factors:

a. The Registrant had self-referred to the HCPC;

b. The Registrant has engaged with the HCPC process;

c. There were guilty pleas to two of three sets of charges. Pleading guilty had ensured that the complainant had not been subjected to the rigors of a criminal trial.

80. [Redacted].

81. In relation to aggravating factors, the Panel identified the following:

a. There have been three sets of charges that resulted in three convictions over a period of eighteen months. Two of those convictions arose from breaches of a restraining order. These convictions relate to the Registrant stalking, harassing and an assault on the complainant resulting in an indefinite restraining order after it was breached for the first time.

b. The Registrant is still the subject of a licence having been allowed out of prison early.

c. There was limited insight demonstrated by the Registrant and no evidence of genuine remorse or apology. Whilst the Registrant had stated during the hearing that he had empathy with Person A, he did not articulate any understanding of the impact on person A and sought in part to blame her for the breach of restraining order.

d. There was a lack of real remediation in the impairment decision and his underlying attitudinal issues were not capable of remediation.

e. There was no evidence of service user harm or potential service user harm. The Registrant had however been convicted of the offence of Common assault.

82. In the Panel’s view the presence of these serious aggravating elements indicated that this was a case that would seriously undermine the standing of the profession and the public’s confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

83. The Panel appreciated that it should start is consideration of the range of sanctions available to it in ascending order. The Panel considered that given the extent of the aggravating factors, the likelihood of repetition and therefore the need for public protection, consideration of taking no further action, mediation or imposition of a Caution Order would not be appropriate in this instance.

84. In terms of a Conditions of Practice, given that the Registrant is still under licence and could, if he breached the terms of that licence return to prison, conditions would be unworkable. Further, given the seriousness of the conduct and lack of remediation such an order would not be appropriate, nor proportionate.

85. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions were such as to be contrary to the fundamental principles of being a professional; in breach of the tenets of his profession; and incompatible with remaining on the register. The Panel considered this to assist it in assessing whether the imposition of a period of suspension was appropriate, or whether this was a case which warranted the ultimate sanction of a striking-off order.

86. The Panel considered the guidance within the Sanctions Policy in relation to the circumstance when it is appropriate to impose a period of suspension. In this instance there was little insight; the likelihood of repetition; and no current indication that the Registrant could, or would, be able to address his underlying attitudinal behaviour. This being the case, the Panel concluded that a period of suspension would not be appropriate.

87. In imposing a striking-off order the Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy identified that one of the factors in such a decision, was the evidence of a conviction for a serious offence. In this instance there are three convictions, one involving a common assault. Two of those convictions had resulted from the Registrant wilfully breaching the terms of a restraining order. His unacceptable conduct was curtailed by a term of imprisonment, which he is still serving whilst on licence.

88. The Policy also stated that a striking-off order was likely to be appropriate where the gravity of the concerns was such that a lesser sanction would not be sufficient. The Panel has therefore determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case is a Striking-Off Order and this is required for public protection and the wider public interest. A well-informed member of the public would be shocked if the Registrant was not struck off given the seriousness of the convictions, and public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would be undermined if such a decision was not made.

89. The Panel in making this Order took into account the impact on the Registrant but in this instance considered that the public interest outweighed that of the Registrant.

Order

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Ashley Dixon from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Notes

Interim Order

Service

1. The HCPC reminded the Panel that the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant on 15 April 2025 included reference to the fact that if a sanction of Conditions of Practice, or Suspension, were imposed under Article 29 of the 2001 Order, an interim order might be sought. It was therefore submitted that there had been good service and that this matter should proceed to be considered by the Panel in the Registrant’s absence.

The HCPC Application

2. The HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of eighteen months. This application was made to ensure that the Registrant would be prohibited from practising during the twenty-eight-day appeal period, and should there be an appeal, the order would be sufficiently long to cover the time within which such appeal would be determined.

3. In the HCPC’s view, an order is necessary in this instance, where there have been findings of three Convictions such that a Striking Off Order was considered by the Panel as the proportionate and appropriate sanction.

4. It was submitted that an interim order was required for public protection and in the wider public interest given the nature of the actions that led to the three convictions, behaviour which would undermine the public confidence in the profession.

Decision

5. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that under Article 31(1)(c) the Panel has a discretionary power to impose an interim conditions of practice order or interim suspension order where a striking off order has been made.

6. The Panel noted that an Interim Order can be imposed on one of three grounds of being necessary for public protection; or in the Registrant’s interest; or the wider public interest. The application by the HCPC is on the basis of public protection and the wider public interest.

7. Within the guidance in the HCPTS Sanctions Policy a situation that would support the imposition of an interim order included that where: ‘the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’

8. In the Panel’s view, this is the situation in this case, where the basis for the Panel’s decision to impose a striking off order was that the public would be rightly concerned if the Registrant were allowed to continue in practice after the Panel’s findings in this case.

9. The Panel has concluded that in this case there was a risk of repetition in the absence of evidence of full remediation and issues concerning his current fitness to return to practice were resolved. The Panel therefore considered that an interim order was necessary in such a situation to protect the public.

10. The Panel considered that the imposition of an Interim conditions of practice order would not be appropriate nor proportionate for all the reasons set out in the Panel’s final determination. Further, there was no evidence that the Registrant was able to comply with any interim conditions of practice order imposed at this time when he is under licence from prison.

11. The Panel has therefore concluded that it would grant the HCPC’s application for an Interim Suspension Order. The Panel also concluded that the period of that notice should be the maximum that can be imposed as there is no certainty as to how long any appeal process will take. The Panel therefore imposed an Interim Suspension Order for a period of eighteen months.

12. In imposing an Interim Suspension Order the Panel consider the impact upon the Registrant but the Panel concluded that the professional and financial impact was outweighed by the public interest.

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.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Ashley Dixon

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
14/07/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off
30/01/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Adjourned
11/10/2024 Conduct and Competence Committee Interim Order Review Interim Suspension
08/07/2024 Conduct and Competence Committee Interim Order Review Interim Suspension
31/05/2024 Investigating Committee Interim Order Review Adjourned
22/01/2024 Investigating Committee Interim Order Review Interim Conditions of Practice
25/07/2023 Investigating Committee Interim Order Application Interim Conditions of Practice
;