Charles K Jimingo

Preliminary Matters
Privacy
1. The Registrant submitted that the hearing should be held partially in private to enable him to discuss personal matters relating to his health and family.

2. Mr Doyle supported the application for the case to be held partially in private. He acknowledged that this was likely to include the Registrant giving his oral evidence wholly in private due to it being difficult to separate health and family matters out from other evidence which the Registrant might give.

3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor with reference to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ dated February 2025.

4. The Panel accepted the submissions made by both parties. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, any health and family issues relating to the Registrant should be kept private, as he has a right to protection of his private life, so far as it relates to his health and family life. The Panel concluded that it was feasible to conduct only part of the hearing in private as matters relating to the Registrant’s health and family are not intrinsically linked to the Allegation. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s oral evidence should be in private because on the basis of the documentation he has provided, his oral evidence is likely to contain extensive detail about his health.

Background
5. The Registrant is a registered Occupational Therapist with the HCPC. He was previously employed as an Occupational Therapist by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (“the Trust”) between mid to late October 2021 and December 2021. During his employment, he was based at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich.

6. On 12 November 2021, a formal complaint was made about his conduct towards Colleague A. In this complaint Colleague A alleged that whilst at work, the Registrant had made inappropriate comments to her. These comments included, but were not limited to, stating: “your eyes are very tempting” and “don’t worry about your weight, you look fine”.

7. In addition to these comments, it is also alleged that the Registrant removed his wedding ring and tried to place this ring on several of Colleague A’s fingers.

8. The Trust commenced an internal investigation. However, the Registrant resigned on 8 December 2021, before the disciplinary process had concluded.

9. During the Trust investigation, it is alleged that when the Registrant was questioned about the wedding ring incident, he allegedly gave an account which he knew to be incorrect, and which differed materially to the depiction of the incident on CCTV footage.

10. After the Registrant left his role at the Trust, he obtained another role in which he was employed as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist at Livingstone Community Hospital by Virgin Care.

11. A referral form was submitted to the HCPC by Ms Leanne Hunt (Occupational Therapy Lead, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust) on 9 February 2022. This referral form summarised many of the alleged incidents.

12. Following receipt of this referral form, the HCPC commenced an investigation. During the course of this investigation, the HCPC interviewed Colleague C. During this interview, Colleague C alleged that the Registrant made inappropriate comments about her appearance such as the fact that he found her attractive.

13. A Substantive Hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee took place on 12 to 15 August 2024 and 30 to 31 October 2024 and it considered the Allegation set out at the start of this decision.

14. The Substantive Hearing Panel found the facts proved in their entirety and that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. They also found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components and imposed a sanction of Suspension for 9 months. The Panel also imposed an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period.

15. On impairment, the Substantive Hearing Panel found the following:
‘The Panel was mindful of the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on impairment and in the Grant case. The Panel considered that the conduct and behaviour found proved is remediable. It considered whether the Registrant has done so.

The Panel took account of the evidence, albeit limited, that the Registrant had apologised in his interview with DB for any harm he had caused to Colleague A and that he had showed some remorse. The Panel has seen three certificates of courses undertaken by the Registrant, but it had no detail of the length, scope and content of those courses. The Panel noted that the Registrant did not appear to have undertaken any training or continued professional development in relation to maintaining professional boundaries. There are no testimonials or references that speak to the Registrants current professional practice.
The Panel found that there was limited evidence of any meaningful acknowledgement by the Registrant of the seriousness of his misconduct. There was limited evidence of any insight by him into his behaviour. Despite being rebuked by her, the Registrant’s responses to
Colleague C were that he was being “jovial” and getting to know people. The Panel found that the evidence demonstrated an attitudinal issue and a serious failure by the Registrant to grasp the unacceptable nature of his conduct and behaviour, and its negative impact on his colleagues.

The Panel had limited evidence to demonstrate any insight, reflection or positive development by the Registrant of this attitude. The Registrant has not demonstrated that he really understands how his conduct toward two female colleagues was inappropriate. He repeated this behaviour towards Colleague C a month or so later with Colleague A.
Further, the Panel found that there was limited evidence that the Registrant has reflected on, grasps or understands the nature and the gravity of his sexually motivated conduct, or his dishonesty in respect of Particular 5. The Panel found that the Registrant has not adequately remedied his practice.

As a result the Panel concluded that there is a real risk of repetition of the misconduct found proved. The Panel was mindful of the suggested approach in Grant when assessing current impairment…

The Panel concluded that the Registrant is liable to repeat his conduct in the future. It has found that, in the past, he caused harm to Colleague A, and is likely in the future to place colleagues at risk of harm. The Panel found that he is liable to bring the profession into disrepute; to breach fundamental tenets of profession, namely professional boundaries, respect and dignity; and that he is liable to act dishonestly in the future. The Panel concluded that the Registrant ‘s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal aspect of impairment.

As regards the public aspect, the Panel found that the Registrant’s misconduct is of a gravity and nature that not to make a finding of impairment would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulator, and would fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards. A reasonable and well-informed member of the public would be most concerned were the practice of a professional with these findings of misconduct not found to be impaired.

The Panel accordingly concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the both the personal and public aspects of impairment’.

16. On sanction, the Substantive Hearing found as follows:
‘… The Panel first considered the aggravating and mitigating features. It found the following aggravating factors:
• Limited insight
• Sexual motivation
• Dishonesty
• A pattern of behaviour.

The Panel found the following mitigating factors:
• Apology and remorse
• Limited insight
• Some remediation
• Some limited admissions in the Trust investigation and at this hearing.

Given the nature and gravity of the findings, the Panel concluded that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the findings. The Panel has found dishonesty and sexual motivation and that there is a risk of repetition and limited insight. Accordingly, to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not be proportionate and would fail to sufficiently mark the seriousness of the findings. The Panel considered paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy on Caution Orders. It found that none of the factors listed in the guidance applied in this case. The misconduct found is serious and is not of a minor nature.

The Panel next considered conditions of practice. It was mindful of paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which indicates a number of factors when conditions may not be appropriate. These include dishonesty, failure to work in partnership and sexual misconduct. The Panel was of the view that the concerns in this case are essentially attitudinal in nature. Given the nature and gravity of the findings the Panel was of the view that it was not possible to devise realistic, workable and proportionate conditions that would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession. Conditions would also fail to appropriately mark the seriousness of the misconduct and would fail to send a message that this conduct is totally unacceptable.

The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. It considered paragraph 121. Whilst the Panel considered that the Registrant has some way to go to remedy his practice, he has shown some, albeit, limited insight and he has undertaken some courses on the path towards remediation of his practice. The Panel found that his misconduct is remediable and it was satisfied that that he is willing and able to resolve the concerns.

The Panel decided that a Suspension Order would be the appropriate and proportionate sanction. A nine month suspension order would serve to protect the public and would properly mark the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel considered that to impose a lengthier period would go further than is required to meet the overarching objectives of the regulator.

The Panel did consider a Striking Off Order, and it considered paragraphs 130 and 131 of the Sanctions Guidance. It was mindful that although serious, the sexually motivated conduct and the dishonesty in this case were not at the most serious end of the spectrum of such conduct, such as conduct involving violence, physical or sexual assault or criminal conduct.
The Panel was mindful of proportionality and the Sanctions guidance which states at paragraph 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.”

The Panel in all the circumstances of this case, found that the misconduct was not of a nature or gravity that it could properly conclude that nothing less than a Striking Off Order would be sufficient to protect the public and wider public confidence. The Panel as of the view that to impose such an order in this case would go further than was necessary, would be disproportionate and punitive’.

17. In its decision, the Substantive Hearing panel considered that a future reviewing panel may be assisted by the Registrant providing the following:
• ‘Evidence of well-developed insight, such as a written reflective piece;
• Evidence of further professional development in the areas of professional boundaries, dignity, respect and trust;
• References and testimonials relevant to the findings in this case’.

18. This is the first review of the Suspension Order which came into effect on 29 November 2024 and is due to expire on 29 August 2025.

Submissions
The Registrant
19. In advance of this hearing, the Registrant provided material which was included in the Hearing Bundle as follows:
• Registrant’s reflection dated 5 July 2025.
• Registrant’s letter dated 7 July 2025.
• Level 2 Certificate in understanding mental health first aid and mental health advocacy in the workplace, dated 21 February 2025.
• Certificate of achievement – Diploma in Depression Counselling Level 3, dated 5 July 2025.
• Certificate of achievement – Effective Communication Training Level 3, dated 4 July 2024.
• Certificate of achievement – Workplace Professionalism Certificate Courses, dated 5 July 2025.
• Certificate of achievement – Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), dated 8 July 2025.
• Certificate of achievement – Privacy and Dignity in Health and Social Care, dated 5 July 2025.
• Certificate of achievement – Professional Boundaries in Health and Social Care, dated 8 July 2025.
• Certificate of achievement – Sexual Harassment Awareness Training, dated 7 July 2025.
• [Redcated].
• [Redcated].

20. The Registrant gave oral evidence on oath and made submissions [Redacted]:
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]
• [Redcated]

The HCPC
21. Mr Doyle referred the Panel to his skeleton argument and adopted its contents as his oral submissions. The submissions as set out in the skeleton argument are as follows:
‘The HCPC submits that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and that the current Suspension Order should be extended by 12 months, to sufficiently protect the public and maintain standards.

As referred to above, in their Decision, the Panel outlined a number of issues for the Registrant to address which may assist a reviewing Panel. The Registrant has provided a written reflective piece and has briefly discussed the allegations. However, most of the written piece relates to the impact the allegations have had on the Registrant’s own life and mental wellbeing and does not address the impact of his behaviour on the two complainants. There is also no mention of the allegations concerning dishonesty.

It is submitted that the written reflective piece does not demonstrate evidence of well-developed insight. The Registrant has not meaningfully acknowledged the seriousness of his misconduct or understood the nature and gravity of the sexually motivated conduct.

The Registrant has provided evidence of further professional development in the areas of professional boundaries, dignity, respect and trust and it is accepted this has been met. However, the Registrant has not provided any references or testimonials relevant to the findings of this case, and it is submitted that this concern remains.

Given the deficiencies identified in the written reflective piece and that the Registrant has not provided any references or testimonials, it is submitted that the Registrant has not fully addressed the issues identified in the previous decision by the Panel and has not demonstrated a sufficient level of insight. As a result, an appreciable risk of repetition remains.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, it is submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the person and public components. As a result, the existing Suspension Order should be extended for a period of 12 months, noting that it currently expires on 29 August 2025.’

22. Mr Doyle referred to the two letters in the bundle relating to additional concerns relating to the Registrant’s practice. Mr Doyle said that the letter dated 10 February 2025, which refers to case FTP.94694, concerns matters which arose before the Suspension Order was imposed. The letter dated 25 November 2024, which refers to case FTP.96368, concerns matters raised by one individual which are said to have occurred before the Suspension Order was imposed but are said to have continued since its imposition. Mr Doyle submitted that FTP.96368, is at triage stage and no decision on whether it meets the threshold has yet been taken. However, he submitted that it is of a similar nature, that being ‘harassment and unwanted attention’, towards a female complainant, which could indicate a pattern of behaviour and risk of repetition.

Advice
23. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor with reference to the following HCPTS Practice Note:
• Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders dated November 2023.
• Fitness to Practice Impairment dated February 2025.
• Sanctions Policy dated March 2019.

24. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that it should ensure proceedings are fair and have regard to the overarching objective of the HCPC. The Legal Assessor provided an explanation based on the HCPC’s process when a referral is received, as set out on the HCPC’s website.

Decision
25. The Panel was mindful of its powers upon a review of a Suspension Order under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and had regard to the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Notes.

26. The Panel noted that its task is to conduct a comprehensive review of the current Order on the basis of the information available today. It must not seek to go behind the findings of the previous panel.

27. The Panel must first decide whether it finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired.

28. The Panel noted that in accordance with the guidance in the case of Abrahaem v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin), the persuasive burden to satisfy the Panel of fitness to practise at a review hearing is upon the Registrant.

29. The Panel further noted that if it found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired, then it should consider what steps to take in respect of the current Order in accordance with its powers under Article 30(1).

30. In reaching its decision, the Panel carefully considered all of the documents provided to it in the substantive review Hearing Bundle, the oral evidence, and submissions.

31. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

32. The Panel considered what, if anything, had changed since the current Order was imposed. The Panel first had regard to the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision.

33. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has undertaken multiple training courses which appear from the course titles to be relevant to the nature of the misconduct found. Further, he has provided a reflective piece, on which he has expanded in his oral evidence.

34. The Panel next considered the degree of the insight shown by the Registrant and whether this had changed since the Order was imposed. It concluded that he had demonstrated some improved insight into the professional boundaries misconduct as found by the Substantive Hearing panel in October 2024. The Panel found that the Registrant now has a developing understanding and awareness about people’s personal space and what is appropriate, as set out in his reflective piece. However, the Panel considered that his insight into professional boundaries is not yet fully developed as he has not provided evidence that he understands the seriousness of the findings made against him. Whilst he has apologised and shown remorse in relation to Collaegue A and C, he has not shown evidence of reflection on how his conduct would have impacted them. His reflections primarily focus on the impact the fitness to practice process and Suspension Order have had on him rather than his colleagues, the public and the profession.

35. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has made no reference, either in his written documents or oral evidence, to the finding on dishonesty. The Panel considered that whilst the Registrant had a right to deny dishonesty at the final hearing, there has been an opportunity since then for the Registrant to reflect on the finding made. Even if the Registrant continues to deny that he was dishonest, despite the finding, it would have been open to him to reflect on the impact a dishonesty finding has on public trust and confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that a failure to mention the dishonesty at all shows no insight into this serious finding.

36. The Panel next considered the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve his professional knowledge and skills. Whilst the Registrant has undertaken multiple courses which appear from the course titles to be relevant to the misconduct, the Panel noted that these took place over four days in recent weeks. The Registrant has not provided any details of the course contents, nor explained how this training would be applied to ensure that his misconduct would not be repeated. The Panel had no evidence of what steps the Registrant would implement based on his training to ensure that he would act differently if faced with similar situations.

37. The Panel next considered whether any other fitness to practise issues have arisen. It noted that further concerns have been referred to the HCPC for investigation, which are alleged to have occurred since the Suspension Order has been in place and which are, based on the limited information available, similar in nature relating to potential breach of boundaries.

38. The Panel concluded that the Registrant does not yet fully accept that his behaviour fell below professional standards, nor does he fully understand how and why it occurred and its consequences for those affected. He has not been able to fully demonstrate to this Panel that he has taken action to address his failures in a manner which remedies any issues and avoids any future repetition.

39. Given the lack of fully developed insight into professional boundaries, the failure to demonstrate any insight into the dishonesty, and the further concern of a similar nature being raised, the Panel concluded that a risk of repetition remains.

40. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that the Registrant remains impaired on the personal component.

41. The Panel also concluded that the Registrant remains impaired on the public component. The public, including the Registrant’s professionally registered colleagues, would expect Registrants to act with complete openness and transparency and abide by professional boundaries. The public should also be able to rely on the regulatory process to ensure it achieves the overarching objective.

42. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had not discharged the persuasive burden of establishing that he was no longer impaired.

43. Having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired, the Panel next considered its powers as set out in Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order.

44. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

45. Having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, the Panel did not consider taking no further action to be the appropriate and proportionate outcome. It would not satisfactorily deal with the public protection risk and would not satisfy the public interest.

46. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. The Panel took into account that a Caution Order would appear on the Register, but that it would not restrict the Registrant’s ability to practise.

47. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order would not be appropriate to protect the public or the wider public interest. The Panel did not consider that the findings made against the Registrant were isolated or minor in nature. They include findings of sexual motivation against two colleagues and dishonesty. Whilst the Panel has found the Registrant’s insight is developing in relation to professional boundaries, he has not yet shown good insight.

48. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order and had regard to paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy. This indicates a number of factors when conditions may not be appropriate. These include dishonesty, failure to work in partnership and sexual misconduct. The Panel was of the view that the concerns in this case are essentially attitudinal in nature. The Panel considered paragraph 109 of the Sanctions Policy and was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, and unlikely to be repeated given the lack of fully developed insight. The Panel concluded that given the nature and gravity of the findings a Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession.

49. The Panel next considered imposing a Suspension Order. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has engaged with this process and that he has taken active steps since the final hearing to address his [Redacted], undertake training, and prepare a reflective piece. The Panel considered that the Registrant is on a journey and whilst he has evidenced progress there is still some way to go. The Panel considered, based on the progress to date, that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve and remedy his failings.

50. The Panel decided that a further period of suspension for a period of 6 months was appropriate and proportionate. This period should give the Registrant sufficient opportunity to demonstrate that he has fully accepted responsibility for his past misconduct and understood how it impacted on the individual colleagues concerned, the wider public, and the profession at large. This period of time should also allow the Registrant the opportunity to find paid or voluntary work, even outside of a healthcare setting, and seek references/testimonials to demonstrate his change of attitude and behaviour towards female colleagues, and his trustworthiness.

51. In order to satisfy itself that the Suspension Order was the appropriate and proportionate order, it considered whether a sanction of Strike Off would be appropriate. The Panel considered that a Strike Off would be disproportionate in light of the Registrant’s developing insight and willingness to resolve matters.

52. The Panel kept in mind that the Suspension Order would be reviewed before its expiry and that the Registrant and/or the HCPC can also apply for an early review.

53. This Panel cannot bind a future panel. However, a future reviewing panel would benefit from the Registrant’s continued engagement and attendance at the hearing. It would be of assistance to the next panel if the Registrant was able to provide evidence that he had undertaken steps that would facilitate a safe and effective return to the Register without restriction. This may include:
• A reflection on how the misconduct impacted on the Registrant’s colleagues, the public, and the profession. The reflection should include comment on the findings of breach of professional boundaries as well as dishonesty.
• Evidence of how the Registrant will, or has, used the training he has undertaken, to ensure his previous misconduct will not be repeated.
• References / Testimonials regarding his character within the work environment, whether that be in paid or voluntary employment.
• Evidence that he has kept his knowledge and skills up to date during this further review period (e.g. evidence of continued professional development).

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Charles K Jimingo for a further period of 6 months on the expiry of the existing order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 29 August 2025.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 28 February 2026.

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 Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

History of Hearings for Charles K Jimingo