Phillip F Hopkins

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel had information before it that the Notice of Hearing had been sent by email on 7 May 2025 to the Registrant’s email address on the HCPC Register.

2. The Panel had in mind the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that there had been good service in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the Conduct and Competence (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in Absence

3. Mr Micklewright, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to take place in the absence of the Registrant. Mr Micklewright referred to a file note of a telephone conversation between the Registrant and the HCPC Case Manager dated 29 May 2025. It is reported that the Registrant explained that he would not be able to attend today as he was abroad, however he stated that:
“… he has now sorted out his personal and health issues. He states he is eager to return to the register, to remediate his past failings, and to demonstrate to the Panel that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired.”

4. Mr Micklewright stated that it could be inferred that the Registrant had waived his right to attend, and that there was an overwhelming public interest in proceeding today, in light of the date of expiry of the current order, namely 12 June 2025. There was no application from the Registrant for an adjournment, and therefore no utility in adjourning the hearing considering the expiry date of the order. Mr Micklewright reminded the Panel that the Registrant had not requested to attend remotely from abroad, and had not replied to a letter dated 4 June 2025 from the Case Manager reminding him that the previous panel had recommended that he provided certain documents to this Panel today, and that to fail to do so may prejudice his case.

5. The Panel considered whether to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and was aware that the discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the utmost care and caution. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

6. The Panel took into account that the date of expiry of the current order is 12 June 2025 and that this is a mandatory review which is required to take place prior to that date. The Registrant was served with the Notice on 7 May 2025 and has had time to prepare. The Panel took into account that there has been no indication of any engagement from the Registrant with regard to this hearing and that it was only when called by the Case Manager on 29 May 2025, that he replied and that a conversation had ensued. In the circumstances, the Panel decided that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend.

7. In all the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed, taking into account the Registrant’s position, as well as the public interest in the expeditious disposal of this mandatory review.

Partly Private Hearing

8. At the start of the hearing, Mr Micklewright applied for any parts of the hearing in which the health of the Registrant were mentioned, to be heard in private in order to protect his private life.

9. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

10. The Panel bore in mind the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and Rule 10(1)(a) of the Conduct and Competence (Procedure) Rules 2003.

11. The Panel decided that any reference to the Registrant’s health should be in private in order to protect the Registrant’s right to a private life.

Background

12. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer who was employed by Alliance Medical Limited (‘Alliance’) from 2018.

13. On 24 February 2022, the Registrant was working for Alliance at a mobile scanning unit at the Durham Diagnostic Treatment Centre (‘DDTC’). During his lunch break the Registrant purchased and drank from a bottle of wine before returning to the DDTC and resuming work. His colleagues noted a change in his behaviour through the afternoon and suggested that he go home. When the Registrant left the DDTC, he dropped the bottle of wine, which smashed on the ground.

14. The Registrant spoke with his manager on 24 February 2022 and again on 25 February 2022, when he admitted buying and consuming alcohol before returning to work at the DDTC. He was suspended on medical grounds pending attendance at an occupational health assessment.

15. On 4 March 2022 the Registrant notified the HCPC of the incident and his suspension.

16. A disciplinary investigation was commenced by Alliance which resulted in a disciplinary hearing being conducted on 7 April 2022. The outcome of the hearing was that the Registrant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect. Alliance notified the HCPC of its concerns about the Registrant via a referral dated 9 May 2022.

17. The Registrant provided the HCPC with consent to access his medical records on 8 June 2022. He was asked to provide an updated consent form in July 2023 and confirmed he would do so via an email dated 19 July 2023 but did not.

18. On 3 April 2023, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that the Registrant did have a case to answer and confirmed the allegation as set out above, notice of which was sent to the Registrant on 12 April 2023. On 13-15 May 2024 a substantive hearing panel heard the Allegation in the absence of the Registrant. The panel found factual Particulars 1 and 3 of the Allegation proved. The panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components and imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

Submissions

19. Mr Micklewright submitted that there was an absence of any evidence from the Registrant to demonstrate insight and remediation, for example to show how he had addressed his health and personal issues, and to show that he had undertaken CPD. Therefore, the risk of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct remained high, and his fitness to practise remained impaired.

20. Mr Mickelwright sought a further period of Suspension for a period of three to six months, as this would be necessary protect the public. It would also allow the Registrant the opportunity to produce a written reflection and to demonstrate to a future panel that he had insight, and that the risk to the public had reduced or was extinguished.

Decision on Impairment

21. In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the documentary evidence, and the submissions of Mr Micklewright.

22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to unrestricted practice and considered the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders”, and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel must exercise its own independent judgement with regard to impairment, bearing in mind that there is a persuasive burden on the Registrant to show that he has addressed his impairment. Only if impairment remained, would the Panel then go on to consider what sanction, if any to impose.

23. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. The Panel took into account all of the material and evidence before it. There has been no information submitted by the Registrant. The Panel noted that he did not attend the last hearing, and while the previous panel had suggested that this Panel would be assisted by a number of documents to be submitted by the Registrant, the Registrant had not submitted any information on his behalf. As such, the Panel took the view that there had been no material change since the last hearing. There is no information to suggest what the Registrant’s level of insight is, any evidence of steps he has taken to address his health or personal issues, any written reflection, or steps he had taken to keep his knowledge and skills up to date. In attending work under the influence of alcohol he put patients at an unwarranted risk of harm and also breached fundamental tenets of the profession and brought the profession into disrepute. It was a serious breach of standards and undermined confidence in him and the profession. In the circumstances, in the absence of any evidence from the Registrant, there remained a real risk of repetition of the misconduct. As such, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on the personal component.

24. Due to the ongoing risk of repetition and the risk to patients, the Panel found that the need to uphold standards and confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

25. The Panel approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It was aware that the purpose of sanction is to protect the public and uphold the public interest, and not to punish. It exercised the principle of proportionality, being mindful that the least restrictive sanction necessary and sufficient to address the concerns and risks, and no more, should be imposed. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the Sanctions Guidance.

26. The Panel first considered whether to take no action. It concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and would provide no restriction on the Registrant’s practice which would be needed to protect the public. Nor would it be sufficient to address the public interest concerns in the case. A Caution Order would be insufficient for the same reasons, bearing in mind the level of seriousness of the misconduct and the real risk of repetition.

27. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. However, it had no indication that the Registrant would be willing to comply with conditions. In addition, this was not a case where the misconduct related to clinical concerns, which may be addressed by verifiable conditions targeting deficits in professional performance. Rather, this case involved attending work while under the influence of alcohol. The Panel therefore did not consider that it could formulate workable conditions. Further, this was a serious case, and as a result of the limited insight and real risk of repetition, any conditions would be insufficient to manage the risk. As such no conditions could be formulated to protect the public and be sufficient to uphold the public interest.

28. The Panel next considered Suspension and decided that in light of the limited insight shown thus far and the real risk of repetition, and as well as the seriousness of the misconduct, a period of Suspension would be appropriate. The Panel was satisfied that no lesser sanction than Suspension would be necessary and proportionate to safeguard against the risk in this case. In addition, a period of Suspension would allow the Registrant the opportunity to engage with the regulatory process and demonstrate his insight into, and remediation of, the misconduct found proved.

29. The Panel determined that a period of six months was proportionate and necessary to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and mark it for the purposes of addressing the public interest in this case, as well as affording public protection. It would also allow the Registrant time to prepare any evidence upon which he seeks to rely.

30. The Panel did consider a Striking Off order, taking into account the Registrant’s lack of engagement during the substantive hearing and this hearing, and the unresolved issues and risk that remains. However, it took into account his expressed wish to engage and decided that in light of that expression, albeit only made few days before today’s hearing, a Striking Off Order would be disproportionate at this time.

31. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the impact this decision will have on the Registrant’s right to practice as well as the potential financial and reputational impact, but decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed his interests in this respect.

32. The Panel therefore decided to impose a six-month period of Suspension which will take effect on the expiry of the current order, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

33. The Panel also decided that a future reviewing panel may be greatly assisted if the Registrant:

a. engages fully in the regulatory proceedings in future;
b. attends future hearings;
c. provides the following information in advance of the review hearing:

i. detailed written reflective piece focusing on:

1. his insight of, and reflection on, the standards of proficiency for radiographers and the standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

2. The impact of his conduct upon the public generally, his patients and his colleagues;

3. The risks posed by working while under the influence of alcohol.

ii. information on his current health, supported by medical evidence where appropriate, which sets out the nature and extent of any ill-health as well as the treatment and prognosis;

iii. information as to his personal circumstances insofar as this impacts upon his professional practice;

iv. evidence of relevant training undertaken in contemplation of a return to the profession.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Philip Hopkins for a further period of 6 months on the expiry of the existing order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 12 June 2025.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 12 December 2025.

Right of Appeal

An appeal may be made to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made.

History of Hearings for Phillip F Hopkins