Daljit Kooner

Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel was provided with evidence that notice of today’s hearing had been sent by email on 28 April 2025. That email had been sent to the registered email address for the Registrant as shown on the HCPC Register The Panel has satisfied itself that the notice of hearing letter contained the correct information relating to today’s hearing and that it had been sent more than 28 days ahead of the scheduled hearing date. This being the case, the Panel found that there had been good service in accordance with the rules.

Proceeding in absence
2. The HCPC made an application for today’s hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In support of that application the Panel was provided with a bundle entitled ‘service’ which extended to 37 pages. Within that bundle were details of the steps that Capsticks Solicitors had taken on behalf of the HCPC to engage the Registrant in these HCPC proceedings.

3. The Panel had evidence that many contacts with the Registrant had been attempted between the period 17 March 2025 to 30 May 2025. The Panel noted that within the bundle there was an email from Registrant to Capsticks, relating to another matter. Within that email he had provided a mobile telephone number for future contact however this telephone number had not resulted in contact being made with the Registrant.

4. Notice of today’s hearing on 28 April 2025 had not bounced back and further emails to this registered email account had been received up to 28 May 2025 when the recipient provider indicated that no further emails were being received due to the email post box being full. That being the case, the HCPC then sent papers for today’s hearing twice by special registered post. Both were signed for the second identifying the signatory as ‘Kooner’.

5. The HCPC stressed that the Registrant had not engaged in the HCPC process, and the only communication received from him relating to this matter, was dated 15 December 2023, a communication within which he confirmed that he was not then practising.

6. There has been nothing received in response to the notice of hearing letter and there is no application for an adjournment and no evidence of a reason for his non-attendance, such a medical evidence or lack of legal representation.

7. The Panel was, in the HCPC’s view, balancing the potential prejudice caused to the Registrant by progressing this matter in his absence with the wider public interest in this matter proceeding without further delay. This is an historic matter where there are no factual issues in dispute and no witness evidence to be challenged. There is nothing before the Panel to indicate that the Registrant would attend at a future date. The HCPC submitted that in the circumstances it should be assumed that the Registrant has made an informed decision to voluntarily absent himself. It was argued that nothing would be achieved in not progressing this matter today, other than further cost and inconvenience.

8. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It noted that nothing had been received from the Registrant to explain his absence, nor has there been an application for an adjournment. The Panel appreciated that there was public interest in this historic matter not being delayed any further and in the absence of any justification for his absence the Panel has accepted that the Registrant has made an informed decision not to attend. There being nothing to indicate that he will be willing to reengage in these proceedings in the future the Panel decided that it would proceed today in his absence.

Background
9. The HCPC received a referral by email dated 20 October 2020 advising that the Registrant had been arrested but released without charge.

10. The Registrant was subsequently charged with an offence contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 relating to an incident on 27 September 2020.

11. The criminal trial went part-heard more than once, but the Registrant was subsequently convicted of an offence and sentencing was deferred to a later date.

12. The extract of conviction confirmed that the Registrant was convicted on 20 October 2023, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, and sentenced on 23 February 2024 to a community payback order, a supervision period of 24 months (from 23 February 2024) and a non-harassment order for 5 years.

13. The sentencing remarks confirmed that for the duration of the supervision period the Registrant will be subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2003 which means that the Registrant is a registered sex offender for a period of two years (from 23 February 2024 until 22 February 2026).

HCPC submissions on the fact of the conviction
14. The HCPC relied upon the fact of the conviction, and Rule 10(1)(d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 which states:
(d) 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 HCPC relied upon the extract of conviction and the supporting documentation provided by the Sheriff’s Court. The findings of fact upon which the conviction was based are described in the sentencing remarks. Those show that the Registrant considered that he had made a bad decision and an error of judgment. At the trial he denied the allegation and after being found guilty had continued to deny his guilt to a member of the probationary service.

16. The Panel was directed to the fact that the incident occurred after the Registrant had been attempting to arrange a post pub gathering at his home. It involved a degree of preplanning as the Registrant is identified as having separated a young woman from her friends and taken her home where he had taken off her clothes and touched her breasts. The young woman was at this time was unconscious due to drink or sleeping.

Conviction
17. The Panel sought and obtained the advice of the Legal Assessor. She emphasized within her advice that the extract of conviction was proof of the fact of the ground of conviction, and the Panel should accept that as total evidence and should not attempt to go behind the fact of the conviction or any circumstances pertaining to it.

18. The Panel accepted the evidence of the extract of conviction which records the nature of the offence. The Panel noted the terms of the sentencing remarks made by the Judge and the extent of the criminal sanctions placed up on the Registrant. The ground of conviction is made out.

HCPC submissions on impairment
19. The HCPC stated that there is nothing to indicate that the Registrant had taken any steps to address his former behaviour. Indeed, the fact that he maintained his innocence throughout the trail and after was an indication that he had not gained any insight into his conduct and there is no evidence of any remorse, apology or regret for his actions. In the absence of anything further from the Registrant the HCPC considered that there was, and remains, impairment on the personal component of the Panel’s decision.

20. The HCPC maintained that the offence and the details of the matter that led to the conviction speak for themselves. They are serious and matters which would naturally cause members of the public to be alarmed. The fact that the Registrant will until February 2026 still be serving part of his community payback sentence was a matter that this Panel should give weight to. It was submitted that the Registrant’s behaviour had not only brought himself but also his profession and the regulatory process into disrepute.

21. The HCPC reminded the Panel that there had been nothing from the Registrant that would assist the Panel in determining his current personal or professional position other than confirmation that he is not practising.

Impairment
22. The Legal Assessor’s advice was sought and accepted by the Panel. The HCPC referred to the relevant Practice Note issued by the HCPTS relating to ‘Fitness to practise: Impairment’.

23. The Panel noted the submissions made by the HCPC. The Panel also noted the sentencing remarks of the Sherriff which indicated that at the time of sentencing the Registrant had still maintained his innocence. There was nothing further from the Registrant since that sentencing hearing. This being the case, the Panel had to assume that the Registrant’s position remained the same and that his denial was confirmation of his lack of insight, lack of remorse and lack of regret and apology for his conduct. There being no evidence of any steps taken to address those failings the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness was and remains impaired on the personal component.

24. In relation to the public component, the Panel considered that a registrant who had an unspent community payback order warranted a marque of censure in the wider public interest. The matters involved in this case are so serious and so damaging to the reputation of the profession as to make some form of restriction essential. The Panel therefore makes a finding of impairment on the public component of its decision.

HCPC submissions on Sanction
25. The HCPC stated that in fairness to the Registrant there had been some limited evidence of health issues at the time of the offence arising from a sustained period of exposure to a pressurised environment.

26. The HCPC did not make any submission as to the appropriate level of sanction, it being a matter for the Panel however the Panel should take into account matters which the HCPC considers to be relevant. Those are:
• The conviction is for a serious assault of a sexual nature.
• There is evidence of some premeditation.
• The victim was a young female who had been separated from her party whilst in an intoxicated condition.
• There had been denial of the events.
• There had been no apology, expression of regret or remorse and no insight demonstrated by the Registrant.

27. The HCPC directed the Panel to sections of the Sanctions Policy that it considered were relevant, namely paragraphs 77, 85, 91 and 130. In accordance with that guidance within the Sanctions Policy it was submitted that the Panel may find the reasons for imposing a Striking Off Order compelling.

28. The HCPC reminded the Panel that it should give full written reasons for any deviation from adopting the guidance within the Sanctions Policy.

Sanction
29. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted the HCPC’s submissions and the advice to consider carefully the terms of the HCPTS Sanctions Policy.

30. As advised, the Panel identified the mitigating and aggravating factors of this case in determining the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose.

31. In relation to mitigating the Panel noted the HCPC’s reference to health issues arising from working in a highly pressurised environment during the early stages of COVID. There was nothing to indicate in what capacity the Registrant had been so exposed given his profession of podiatrist. However, in any event, there was no medical evidence from 2020 or since to support this position that his actions had been influenced or driven by heath issues.

32. In relation to aggravating issues the Panel noted the following:
• There were indications within the sentencing remarks to other previous Police issues. Whilst those may not be factually relevant to today’s hearing, the Panel noted that the Registrant is not without a previously unblemished reputation.
• As also indicated in the sentencing remarks, the Registrant was recorded as having a drink issue which had not been addressed. This the Panel took into consideration in relation to the issue of repetition. Further uncontrolled drinking may result in the Registrant again making a ‘bad decision’ or ‘error of judgment’ as he termed it.
• The Registrant had been predatory in ensuring that the victim was separated and led away from her friends and taken to his home.
• The Panel further noted that the evidence of the incident was brought to light by the arrival of the victim’s friends and the Police at the Registrant’s home.
• There was and remain denial of the events by the Registrant.
• There has been nothing to demonstrate insight nor any evidence of remorse, apology or regret for his actions.
• The Registrant was currently the subject of a community payback sentence which will not come to an end until February 2026 and this was incompatible with unrestricted practice.

33. The Panel considered that this was a very serious case and one that fell within the advice in the Sanctions Policy at paragraphs 76 and 77 relating to sexual misconduct and 80 to 84 relating to criminal convictions. The Panel paid particular attention to paragraph 85 which states:
‘Although inclusion on the sex offenders’ 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 offenders’ database.’

34. The Panel as directed started its consideration of the level of sanction to impose from the bottom of the scale. The Panel did not consider that offering mediation was appropriate or practicable in this instance. Taking no further action or imposing a caution order would provide no public protection and so were discounted. The Panel considered that there was no formation to support the adoption of a Conditions of Practice Order. Further, the matters involved are too serious and relate to conduct outside of the working environment.

35. In relation to the imposition of a period of suspension or the further level of a striking off order the Panel considered carefully the following advice within the Sanctions Policy. At paragraph 121 the Policy identifies the elements which would support the making of a period of suspension. Those include evidence of the Registrant having gained insight and the failings are capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated. There is no evidence in this instance of such factors. In relation to a striking off order and the terms of paragraph 130 and 131, the guidance identifies that this is an appropriate measure where there has been sexual misconduct as identified in paragraphs 76 and 77 of the guidance and where there is no insight, no indication of willingness to resolve issues and given the nature and gravity of the misconduct. Having taken all that into consideration the Panel has concluded that in this instance a striking off order is the only proportionate and appropriate sanction.

36. In imposing a Striking Off Order the Panel took into account and considered the financial, personal and professional impact this will have on the Registrant. However, given the nature of the concerns and the impact the Registrant’s actions had upon the public it was considered that the public interest outweighed his in this instance.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Daljit Kooner from the Register with immediate effect.

Interim Order
Application
The Panel had sight earlier today of the Notice of Hearing letter in which the Registrant had been put on notice that there may be an application by the HCPC for an interim order in the event of a Conditions of Practice, Suspension, or Striking-off Order were imposed. 181702 The HCPC had previously identified for the Panel the reasons why this hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence and the Panel has concluded that it would. That being the case, the Panel invited the HCPC to make an application for an interim order without repeating those reasons for proceeding.

The HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of eighteen months. This application is 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 interim order would be sufficiently long to cover the time within which such appeal would be determined.

In the HCPC’s view, an order is necessary in this instance, where there have been findings of serious misconduct such that a Striking-off Order was considered by the Panel as the proportionate and appropriate sanction. One of the reasons why the Panel considered this was the correct level of sanction related to the risk of repetition was, it considered; to be high and given the nature of the conviction for sexual misconduct it was necessary for public protection. In the HCPC’s view that would support the making of an interim order not only in order to provide public protection but it was also required in the wider public interest.
Decision 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 there has been a determination under Article 29(5)(c), the imposition of a Striking-Off Order.

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 public interest.
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.’ In the Panel’s view, this is the situation in this case, where the basis for the Panel decision to impose a Striking-off order was that the public would be concerned about the Registrant’s conviction and registration on the Sex Offenders’ database. Members of the public would rightly be concerned if the Registrant were allowed to continue in practice.

The Panel has concluded that in this case there was a risk of repetition of the behaviour complained of and in the absence of any evidence of steps taken to remediate that conduct which displayed an attitudinal concern and continued denial of wrongdoing. The Panel therefore considered that an interim order was necessary in such a situation.
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 would comply with any interim Conditions of Practice Order imposed.

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.

In imposing an Interim Suspension Order the Panel considered the impact upon the Registrant but given his repeated statement that he considered himself retired and no longer a member of his profession the Panel concluded that the professional and financial impact was negligible. In any event, the need for public protection and the wider public interest outweighed the interests of the Registrant.

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

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Daljit Kooner