Wendy Thomas

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was shown an unredacted copy of an email sent to the Registrant on 8 May 2025, in which she was informed of the date and time of this hearing. She was also informed that it was proposed that this hearing would be conducted remotely by the use of Microsoft Teams. The Panel was satisfied that this communication satisfied the notice of hearing requirement.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. After the Panel stated that it was satisfied that there had been service of valid notice of hearing, the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He referred the Panel to relevant case law in which the Courts had suggested matters to be considered in deciding whether to proceed with a hearing in the absence of the person it concerns. He referred to the email sent by the Registrant to the HCPTS on 28 April 2025, and also to the Hearings Officer’s email sent to the Registrant on 6 June 2025 (both of which will be further described below), and submitted that it was evident that the Registrant had voluntarily waived her right to attend the hearing. The submission he made on behalf of the HCPC was that the hearing should proceed.

3. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the issue, and it followed the guidance contained in the relevant HCPTS Practice Note. In particular, the Panel acknowledged that its finding that there had been good service of the notice of hearing was a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in that decision. It would be necessary for the Panel to conclude that it would be fair in all the circumstances to proceed before exercising its discretion to direct that it should.

4. Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel concluded that the hearing should proceed in the Registrant’s absence. The reasons for that decision were as follows:

• On 28 April 2025, the Registrant sent an email to a member of the HCPTS Scheduling Team in which she wrote, “I will not be attending the hearing, I no longer wish to practice Radiotherapy. The toll this has taken on my [Redacted] is too much and after such a long time I have put all this behind me”.

• In addition to the notice of hearing sent to her on 8 May 2025, which informed the Registrant of the dates of this hearing, on 6 June 2025, the Hearings Officer sent the Registrant an email referring to the hearing date and containing a link to enable her to join the hearing being conducted by Microsoft Teams should she change her mind.

• The combination of the Registrant’s email dated 28 April 2025, and the two emails sent to her informing her of the hearing date, resulted in the Panel finding that the Registrant’s absence from the present hearing constituted a voluntary waiver of her right to attend it.

• There was no information which could lead the Panel to conclude that the Registrant would be likely to attend a hearing on a future date if the present hearing was adjourned.

• The hearing had been listed for seven days and the participation of six witnesses had been arranged over the first five days of the hearing.

• The factual issues to be decided involved matters that occurred up to three years ago. Further delay in resolving them would not be desirable.

• In all these circumstances, the public interest required the case to proceed.

Conducting the hearing partially in private

5. The Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing should be conducted in private when matters relating to the Registrant’s health were discussed. This application was founded upon the need to protect the Registrant’s private life. His primary submission was that the hearing should be conducted partially in private. However, he submitted that were the Panel to take the view that issues relating to the Registrant’s health could not sensibly be disentangled from issues that would not themselves require the hearing to be held in private, the entire hearing should be conducted in private.

6. Having taken and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel agreed that the hearing should be conducted in private when there would be mention of the Registrant’s health. The Panel did not consider that this decision necessitated the entire hearing to be conducted in private, being of the view that those parts requiring privacy could be identified to enable other parts of the hearing to be conducted in public.

7. Consistent with the Panel’s decision as to the conduct of the hearing, elements of the Panel’s written determination require redaction for publication. This is the redacted, public version of the Panel’s determination.

Mixed Allegation

8. The Allegation referred by the Investigating Committee on 11 December 2024 includes an Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and an Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her physical and/or mental health. The referral was made to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

9. Consistent with the referral by the Investigating Committee, the Panel is presently constituted as the Conduct and Competence Committee. As such it has jurisdiction to decide the Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. As presently constituted, the Panel does not have jurisdiction to decide the Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her physical and/or mental health.

10. Unfortunately, the HCPC did not comply with the explicit requirements provided for by paragraphs 26 and 27 of the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, ‘Mixed Allegations’ (hereafter ‘the Practice Note’). Those paragraphs are in the following terms:

‘26. In advance of the hearing, the HCPC should make clear what evidence it is intending to rely on to prove the facts of the statutory ground(s) that the Practice Committee may determine. Where necessary, it should set out why the evidence it proposes to call is admissible. It should also make clear in advance if it proposes to make reference to the statutory ground(s) that the Panel may not determine, and if so, why.

27. In advance of the hearing, the HCPC should also make clear its position on what should happen to the allegation on the statutory ground(s) that the Panel may not determine (i.e. in what, if any, circumstances it should be discontinued and/or transferred to the other Practice Committee for resolution)’.

11. The Case Summary dated 3 June 2025, provided to the Panel in advance of the commencement of the hearing made no mention of ‘Mixed Allegations’. In paragraph 7 it identified the witnesses the HCPC intended to call, and those witnesses included not only the five Radiographers whose evidence related to Particulars 1, 2 and 3 of the Allegation, but also identified [Redacted], a medical practitioner, who had provided an expert report dated 22 August 2024, a report prepared following an examination of the Registrant undertaken by a Zoom video call on 2 August 2024. Paragraph 6 of the Case Summary set out a summary of the matters considered by [Redacted], the instructed medical practitioner.

12. So that it might comply with the obligation referred to at paragraph 22 of the Practice Note to clearly identify which statutory ground it might determine, and which numbered particulars it needed to make findings on as a result, before the case was opened, the Panel invited submissions from the Presenting Officer on how the referred ‘Mixed Allegation’ should be approached. The position can be summarised thus:

• At this stage, the Panel would be required to decide whether the Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. That decision would require the Panel to decide Particulars 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 insofar as Particular 6 related to misconduct.

• As this stage, the Panel could not decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her physical and/or mental health. It followed that Particular 6 so far as that Particular related to the Registrant’s health could and should not be decided.

• The question the Panel had to decide was whether it was legitimate, when constituted as the Conduct and Competence Committee, considering the Allegation that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct, to receive and/or make decisions about the evidence of [Redacted] the instructed medical practitioner (hereafter ‘the medical evidence’).

13. The submission made by the Presenting Officer at this stage of the hearing was that the Panel as presently constituted as the Conduct and Competence Committee should not have regard to the medical evidence and should not make any findings about such evidence. He submitted that any consideration of that evidence would only be appropriate if, and when, the Panel re-constituted itself as the Health Committee having concluded the decisions being made as the Conduct and Competence Committee.

14. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to have regard to the medical evidence, and, if appropriate, make findings based on that evidence. It must be remembered that this was a decision being made at the commencement of the case, before any evidence had been given, and, therefore necessarily before the Panel had made any findings about any matter. The reasons why the Panel did not accept the Presenting Officer’s submission and concluded that it should have regard to the medical evidence were as follows:

• The fact that the medical evidence would be central to the health Allegation were that to be decided at some future stage, did not mean that the medical evidence could not be relevant to the misconduct Allegation the Panel was charged with the duty to decide.

• Receiving and assessing the medical evidence in relation to the misconduct Allegation would not require the Panel to do what it accepted it should not and could not do, namely decide if the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of her physical and/or mental health.

• The Panel accepted that the medical evidence should only be considered if it could properly be thought potentially to relate to the misconduct Allegation. Making this judgement before any decisions on the evidence had been reached, in the judgement of the Panel, the medical evidence was plainly potentially relevant to the misconduct Allegation. The misconduct Allegation relates to drinking at and/or being under the influence of alcohol at work and underperforming on one of those occasions. Evidence relating to the background to the [Redacted] should, in the judgement of the Panel, be received. It could possibly be relevant to issues of mitigation (see paragraph 25 (a) of the Practice Note), and therefore should be received in fairness to the Registrant. It is even more likely to be relevant to issues of the risk of repetition and therefore impairment of fitness to practise if the factual propositions are proven and decided to amount to misconduct. In the view of the Panel, it would be failing in its duty to ensure that the public is protected by ensuring that all relevant aspects of a case are considered were it not to have regard to the medical evidence.

• In the Panel’s view, the need to assess the medical evidence is demonstrated by the way the HCPC advances its case on misconduct. Included in the Case Summary was the argument that contributing to a finding of misconduct should be a finding that the Registrant breached Standard 6.3 of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics in force at the time. That standard provides, ‘You must make changes to how you practise, or stop practising, if your physical or mental health may affect your performance or judgement, or put others at risk for any other reason’. It was not clear to the Panel how this standard could be said to be breached without it being established that there was a health condition that was not adequately managed.

• The Panel fully accepted that the expert medical evidence could have no bearing on its decision on the factual propositions advanced by Particulars 1, 2 and 3. In deciding that it should receive this evidence the Panel was satisfied that it had the ability properly to apply it to issues that it might be relevant to and to exclude it from its decisions on those matters on which it could not logically bear.

15. For these reasons, the Panel decided that it should consider the medical evidence. However, for the reasons explained below, the Panel did not consider it necessary for [Redacted] the medical practitioner to attend the hearing on the third and/or fourth days of the hearing as had been scheduled.

Amendment of the Allegation

16. Particular 3 (ii) of the Allegation as referred by the Investigating Committee was in the following terms, “did not complete the patient care plan, as it was not treatment approved”. Before the case was opened the Panel asked whether there had been an error in the presentation of this Sub-Particular as it did not read easily. Having taken instructions, the Presenting Officer applied to amend it.

17. The form amended approved by the Panel is set out in the Allegation at the head of this determination, and reads, “did not approve their treatment plan”. The Panel was satisfied that this amendment should be made as it accorded with the evidential case the HCPC proposed to produce in relation to the incident, it was consistent with the original wording, and, crucially, would not result in prejudice to the Registrant.

How the different stages included in the Allegation would be dealt with

18. As the Allegation being decided was that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Radiographer is impaired by reason of misconduct, it followed that there were three distinct elements to be addressed, namely the facts, if relevant facts were proven, whether they amounted to misconduct, and, if misconduct is established, whether that misconduct is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Radiographer. The Panel was clear that these three elements were to be decided not only separately but sequentially. At the commencement of the case the Panel informed the Presenting Officer that it would address these three elements in one segment of the hearing unless he submitted that a different course should be adopted. The Presenting Officer stated that he was content to present the HCPC’s case as suggested by the Panel.

Background

19. The matters alleged by the HCPC against the Registrant occurred during her employment by Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). The Registrant qualified as a Radiographer in 2013 or 2014, and by the time of the alleged incidents in 2022 and 2023, she had progressed to become a Senior Radiographer.

20. In relation to the misconduct Allegation, it is alleged that on 30 June 2022, the Registrant attended work whilst under the influence of alcohol and that she consumed alcohol during her shift while at work. It is also alleged that a further incident occurred on 21 February 2023, when the Registrant attended work under the influence of alcohol and incorrectly performed as alleged in Particular 3.

Decision on Facts

21. In addition to the expert opinion evidence of [Redacted], the medical practitioner, the HCPC relied upon the evidence of five witnesses of fact. It was proposed that each of the witnesses of fact would be called to give evidence before the Panel, and their attendance had been scheduled over the first three days of the hearing. All of them are Radiographers and, at the time of the relevant events, each of them was employed by the Trust. Their roles at the time of the events were as follows:

• MF, who was a Radiographer Treatment Expert Practitioner. From 2021 MF line managed the Registrant.

• CK, who was a Band 7 Radiography Delivery Advanced Practitioner.

• JJ, from November 2022, was the Radiotherapy Operation and Quality Lead.

• LW. Before 1 August 2022, LW was the Quality and Operational Lead for Radiotherapy at the Trust. From 1 August 2022, LW was the Radiotherapy General Manager.

• PM, who joined the Trust as a Band 5 Radiographer on 2 December 2022.

22. Each of the five witnesses of fact just described made a witness statement in 2024 for the purposes of the present proceedings. Additionally, the Panel was provided with copies of contemporaneous documents prepared by them following the event that occurred on 21 February 2023, and also a record of their internal Trust interview relating to the same incident.

23. The Presenting Officer made it clear to the Panel that he did not have any questions for the witnesses. It was his intention to ask each witness to confirm their witness statement made for the present proceedings (which statements exhibited the more contemporaneous accounts just described), and ask the Panel that the witness statement should stand as the evidence in chief of the witness. After MF and CK gave their evidence, and the Panel asked them questions in order to clarify matters, the Panel retired to consider whether there was anything to be gained by calling JJ, LW and PM as live witnesses to give evidence to the Panel. After the evidence of MF and CK, the Presenting Officer was asked if he remained of the view that he would not wish to examine the remaining witnesses in chief or ask any of them to clarify their written witness statements. He confirmed that he remained of the view that he would not wish to ask them any questions. The Presenting Officer was asked to address the Panel on the principles relating to hearsay evidence, and referred to reported decisions on the issue.

24. The Panel carefully considered whether there were questions that it should ask witnesses JJ or LW or PM. In doing so it reviewed both the written evidence of all the witnesses as well as the oral evidence of MF and CK that had by that time been received. The Panel considered not only whether it had questions which it wished to ask in order to clarify the written evidence, but whether there was any information that suggested that the Registrant had raised a factual issue which it would be necessary to put to a witness. The conclusion of the Panel was that on neither ground was there a need for JJ, LW or PM to attend the hearing, in effect, simply to confirm the accuracy of the witness statements the contents of which they had already confirmed they believed to be true.

25. [Redacted], the medical practitioner’s attendance had been scheduled for the fourth and fifth days of the hearing. Having previously decided that it would consider his evidence, the Panel carefully considered whether his planned attendance at the hearing should be maintained, or whether his evidence could properly be received by way of his expert report dated 22 August 2024. The conclusion reached by the Panel was that it would have no questions for him and that, accordingly, his evidence could properly be received by way of his report.

26. In his closing submissions on facts, the ground of misconduct and impairment, the Presenting Officer invited the Panel to accept the evidence of the witnesses of fact and submitted that their evidence proved the relevant Particulars of the Allegation. He further submitted that the Panel should not make a finding in regards to Particular 4.

27. The Panel approached its findings on the facts on the basis that there had been no admissions by the Registrant. Accordingly, the HCPC carried the burden of proving the relevant factual issues on the balance of probabilities.

28. In reaching its decision the Panel followed the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1 – On 30 June 2022, you;

i. attended work whilst under the influence of alcohol.

ii. consumed alcohol during your shift.

29. The Panel accepted the evidence of MF which was supported by that of LW. On this day the Registrant was rostered to work the late shift commencing at 10:30. At lunchtime she was seen by LW wearing her ordinary clothes and carrying her uniform which was wet. She was “not looking herself” and, when spoken to, was slurring her words. She explained her wet uniform by stating that she had vomited. She said that she felt unwell and thought that she would vomit again. As LW was speaking to the Registrant, MF walked past. Together, LW and MF spoke to the Registrant in an office and MF went off to find the Registrant’s bag. Inside the Registrant’s bag were two 250ml wine bottles, one of them empty and the other very nearly empty. During the conversation, the Registrant admitted that she had been drinking.

30. The Panel finds that the Registrant was under the influence whilst at work. In relation to the contention that alcohol had been consumed at work, when interviewed following the February 2023 incident, MF recollected that the Registrant had admitted to the taking of alcohol whilst at work on 30 June 2022. In any event, the Panel found that it was a proper inference to draw from the evidence relating to the two wine bottles in the Registrant’s bag, coupled with the fact that the Registrant’s evident intoxication and vomiting had occurred some time into the shift, that the HCPC had discharged the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that alcohol had been consumed during the shift that commenced at 10:30.

31. The Panel finds the entirety of Particular 1 proven.

Particular 2 – On 21 February 2023, you attended work whilst under the influence of alcohol.

32. In relation to the Registrant’s presentation at work on 21 February 2023, three witnesses gave direct evidence that is relevant to this Allegation. The Registrant was rostered to be patient-facing on this shift as part of a team of four Radiographers on one machine, including PM who was a Band 5 Radiographer. PM recollected that the Registrant “looked visibly upset” when she arrived at work stating that she had concerns about the health of a close family member. He also recollected that the Registrant repeatedly went out of the area where they working for a reason that was not apparent to him, that she appeared to still be upset, and subsequently drowsy. His view was that the Registrant did not appear to be focused, and his own attitude was that as a result he did not feel comfortable working with her, as she was “quite confused and couldn’t seem to remember what she had done when it came to treating the patients”. On more than one occasion he recommended that the Registrant speak to MF, who was the duty manager that day, but the Registrant did not go to MF and speak with her. However, MF, having been alerted to the situation some time after 15:00, asked to speak with the Registrant. Both MF and JJ then met with the Registrant and it is their evidence that the Registrant was intoxicated. The Registrant admitted that she had taken alcohol and eventually admitted to both MF and JJ that she had taken it while at work. When the Registrant became tearful after making this admission, JJ put her arm around her and was able to smell alcohol.

33. Particular 2 is proven.

Particular 3 – On 21 February 2023, in relation to Patient A you incorrectly recorded that a task was complete when you;

i. did not complete the journal entry confirming the second SSE check had been performed;

ii. did not approve their treatment plan

34. After it was discovered that the Registrant was intoxicated, CK was asked by MF to review the work she had undertaken. This request was made at about 15:00, more than four hours after the commencement of the Registrant’s late shift that had commenced at 10:30. Due to the Registrant being upset she had limited patient contact, but did treat four patients at lunchtime when another Radiographer was not available. When not treating patients, a radiographer would “be off set” and expected to undertake checks and preparations necessary for patient treatment delivery. In fact, CK found only one action on the ‘ARIA’ oncology system purportedly undertaken by the Registrant, and that related to Patient A. The Registrant recorded that a specific task had been completed. Included in the necessary actions required for completion were a journal entry confirming that the second Systemic Setup Error (‘SSE’) check had been performed, and approval of the treatment plan, and neither had been done. By recording that the task had been completed, it appeared that the Registrant had undertaken the particularised actions, whereas in fact she had not. Having identified this omission, CK was able to rectify matters as Patient A had not yet been treated.

35. The entirety of Particular 3 is proven.

36. Constituted, as it is, as the Conduct and Competence Committee, the Panel accepted the evidence of [Redacted] the medical practitioner. [Redacted].

37. Having reached the findings stated in the preceding paragraph, the Panel does not consider that it is necessary formally to decide that Particular 4 is proven.

Decision on Misconduct

38. Having concluded that Particulars 1, 2 and 3 are proven, the Panel then went on to consider whether they amounted to misconduct.

39. The Panel should be clear about the behaviour that is relevant to the decision. It is not drinking alcohol, still less is it a health condition [Redacted]. It is the attendance at work when intoxicated, the consumption of alcohol at work and the making of serious recording errors when intoxicated.

40. The Panel first addressed the question of whether the Registrant’s actions breached professional standards. In the judgement of the Panel the following standards of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics that were in force in 2022 and 2023 were breached by the Registrant:

6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.

6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

6.3 You must make changes to how you practise, or stop practising, if your physical or mental health may affect your performance or judgement, or put others at risk for any other reason.

9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

41. The HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s actions amounted to breaches of the Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers in force at the relevant time. In the main those standards are concerned with a practitioner’s ability to perform the tasks necessary for the safe and effective performance of their profession. The evidence provided to the Panel has been consistent on the Registrant’s ability as a Radiographer; when not adversely affected by alcohol, her performance was excellent. Of course, when under the influence of alcohol, performance is liable to result (and, as evidenced by Particular 3, did result) in a manner that standards of proficiency are designed to prevent, but that is a matter more appropriately addressed by reference to the standards already reviewed. For these reasons the Panel does not consider it to be either necessary or helpful to review standards of proficiency.

42. The Panel accepted the advice it received that a finding of misconduct should not be made merely because a breach of a standards (or breaches of more than one standard) have been identified. It is necessary for the Panel to assess the seriousness of any breaches.

43. In assessing the seriousness of Particular 3, it is not simply the fact that an error was made that is the issue. The Panel accepts that even the most competent practitioner will, on occasions, commit an error. The seriousness of Particular 3 is that it is an error that occurred when the Registrant had chosen to attend work, and undertake professional activities while at work, when under the influence of alcohol.

44. It is a serious matter for any professional person to attend work while under the influence of alcohol. It is particularly serious for a health care professional such as a Radiographer whose activities can result in real harm if not undertaken carefully. It is not only that performance is liable to be adversely affected to the detriment of service users, but also because the effect of alcohol is liable to result in the person intoxicated not appreciating that they are not safe to practise.

45. The Panel is satisfied that when viewed individually and collectively the proven particulars are sufficient serious to justify being categorised as misconduct. They represent a serious falling short of the standards expected of a Radiographer, and the Panel is satisfied that fellow professionals would regard the Registrant’s behaviour to have been deplorable.

Decision on Impairment

46. In deciding whether the established misconduct is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise, the Panel heeded the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note on the topic. The Panel addressed separately the issues of the personal and public components.

Personal component

47. The Panel noted that despite the absence of any information provided to the Panel beyond what was stated in her email dated 28 April 2025 relating to attendance at a hearing, in her responses to the Trust, the Registrant expressed a degree of remorse for her actions.

48. When the misconduct in issue is choosing to attend work when intoxicated and consuming alcohol at work, those are breaches which are conceptually capable of being remedied in the sense that the person who acted in that way in the past might change their behaviour and not do it in the future. The question for the Panel is to decide whether there is information from which a judgement can be made as to whether the Registrant will repeat the behaviour the Panel has found proved in relation to 30 June 2022 and 21 February 2023.

49. The fact that the Registrant repeated behaviour on 21 February 2023 that had been identified on 30 June 2022, is clearly a factor that must be considered by the Panel. On this issue the evidence of [Redacted,] the medical practitioner is of the first importance. [Redacted].

50. The conclusion arrived at by the Panel is that, were the Registrant to be permitted to return to unrestricted practice as a Radiographer, there would be a significant risk of repetition of the behaviour underpinning the Panel’s finding of misconduct, namely attendance at work when intoxicated and/or consumption of alcohol whilst at work.

51. For this reason, a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the personal component must be made.

Public component

52. The finding made in relation to the personal component that there is a risk of repetition means that there is a risk of future service user harm. That fact alone requires a finding of impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the public component.

53. However, the Panel considers that even absent the risk of repetition, the public perception of a Radiographer attending work when intoxicated would be so serious that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise would be necessary to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the profession of Radiography and in the regulation of that profession. Furthermore, were a panel not to make a finding of impairment of fitness to practise in a case involving attendance at work when intoxicated, the wrong message would be sent to other professionals and such a decision would fail to recognise the importance of declaring and upholding proper professional standards.

54. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise is required to satisfy the public component.
Conclusion on impairment of fitness to practise.

55. The result of these findings is that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, and it follows that the misconduct Allegation is well founded. The consequence of that finding is that the Panel must go on to decide if a sanction is required in relation to the finding that the misconduct Allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

56. The written determination appearing above was handed down towards the end of the afternoon of the third day of the hearing. The Panel stated that it would allow until the following morning for the Presenting Officer to consider it before advancing the HCPC’s submissions on sanction.

57. When he made his submissions, the Presenting Officer informed the Panel that the HCPC took a neutral stance on the issue of the appropriate sanction. He submitted that the Panel should make its decision by applying the principles contained in the HCPC’s ‘Sanctions Policy’. He identified matters that the HCPC wished the Panel to consider as potentially aggravating factors. These factors were that the Registrant’s actions constituted a breach of trust so far as colleagues were concerned, that there was a repetition of concerns, a lack of insight remorse and apology, an absence of remediation and potential service user harm. The Presenting Officer very properly, given the absence of the Registrant, sought to identify mitigating factors, and, in doing so, stated that this was the first regulatory case brought against the Registrant by the HCPC. After making submissions on these matters, the Presenting Officer took the Panel to specific paragraphs in the Sanctions Policy that deal with Suspension Orders and Striking Off Orders.

58. The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the proper approach to the making of a decision about sanction. Accordingly, a sanction should not be imposed to punish the Registrant. Rather, a sanction should only be imposed to the extent that it is required to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the Radiography profession and the regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. To ensure that this important approach is applied, a panel must first ask itself whether the finding it has made requires any sanction at all. If a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of seriousness until one that is appropriate is reached. This is a process that must be undertaken in conjunction with the guidance contained in the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. As the finding of the Panel is one of misconduct, the entire sanction range up to, and including, striking off is available. The Panel confirms that the decision to be explained has been reached by applying this approach.

59. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Panel to repeat all that has already been recorded in its decisions on misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise. It is, however, necessary for the Panel to identify those factors that are of particular importance for the purposes of its sanction decision. The Panel has concluded that, were there to be no restriction on the Registrant’s ability to practise, there would be a risk of repetition of being under the influence of alcohol at work. That was a decision already explained by the Panel that was based on some of the aggravating factors identified by the Presenting Officer, including the fact that in February 2023, the Registrant repeated behaviour that had occurred some eight months earlier and had limited insight into those failings. For reasons that do not require elaboration, were that to occur, service users would be exposed to an unacceptable degree of risk of harm.

60. It was not suggested that any service user suffered harm as a result of the Registrant’s actions on either 30 June 2022 or 21 February 2023. However, in the view of the Panel this is not a factor that can be said to mitigate the seriousness of the misconduct because there was a clear risk of service user harm.

61. [Redacted].

62. The Panel also noted that the Registrant’s clinical ability was described as being very good when not affected by alcohol.

63. When the Panel asked itself the question whether its findings required the imposition of a sanction, the clear answer to that question was that they did. To pass from the case without imposing a sanction would provide no protection against the risk of a recurrence and it would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct. For the same reason the Panel rejected the imposition of a Caution Order as an appropriate response.

64. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order, and in that context had regard to paragraph 106 of the ‘Sanctions Policy’. The conclusion of the Panel was that, given the degree of monitoring that would be required to remove the risk of repetition, it would not be possible to formulate conditions of practice that would be workable while continuing to provide the opportunity for the Registrant to practise autonomously.

65. The rejection of conditions of practice meant that the Panel went on to decide if a Suspension Order should be made. The Panel considered paragraph 121 of the ‘Sanctions Policy’, which is in these terms:

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

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

b. the registrant has insight;

c. the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

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

66. This is indeed a case that represents a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, but that apart, the Panel did not consider that this case presented these suggested factors. The Registrant’s insight is limited. It cannot be said that the issues are unlikely to be repeated, and the reason for that is that there is no evidence that the Registrant will be likely to resolve or remedy the fundamental issue that resulted in her being at work under the influence of alcohol. It is now more than two years since the later of the two incidents found proved, and the Registrant has not provided any information that she has taken steps to ensure that she would not repeat her misconduct [Redacted].

67. It followed from these findings that although a Suspension Order would provide public protection for the duration of the period of suspension, it would serve no positive purpose, because on the available evidence the risks at the end of the period would be no less than they are at the present time. This is underlined by the Registrant’s statement made in her email sent on 28 April 2025 to which reference was made in paragraph 4 above that she does not wish to return to her career as a Radiographer.

68. The fact that this case did not fit the suggested characteristics of a case resulting in a Suspension Order meant that the Panel went on to consider making a Striking Off Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 131 of the ‘Sanctions Policy’, and concluded that this is a case in which no lesser sanction would sufficiently protect the public. It is also the sanction that is required to ensure a proper degree of public confidence in the profession of radiography and the regulation of it.

69. Before confirming that the sanction to be imposed should be that of striking off, the Panel asked itself whether it would be a proportionate response to the Panel’s finding that the misconduct Allegation is well founded. It is not the Panel’s decision that misconduct of the sort established in this case must necessarily result in a Striking Off Order. The reason why such an Order is required in this particular case is because of the lack of current evidence of insight or a willingness to resolve matters, the risk of repetition and the absence of any information from which the Panel could properly conclude that a time might come when the Registrant could be permitted to return to practise. For that reason, the Panel is satisfied that its decision represents a proportionate response.
Consideration of the Allegation contained in the Mixed Allegation referred by the Investigating Committee that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her physical and/or mental health.

70. In view of the fact that the Panel has imposed a Striking Off Order in respect of the misconduct allegation, applying paragraph 30 of the HCPC Practice Note entitled, ‘Mixed Allegations’, no further action is required.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Wendy Thomas from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Interim Order Application

1. After the Panel announced its decision that the substantive sanction would be that of a Striking Off Order, the Presenting Officer applied for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. He submitted that the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues resulted in an Interim Order being necessary for protection of members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. In submitting that the Order should be made for the maximum period of 18 months, the Presenting Officer argued that if the Registrant did appeal the Panel’s decision, an appeal could take at least that length of time to be finally disposed of.

2. There were no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant on this issue.

Decision

3. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the application. It also had regard to the section entitled, ‘Interim orders’ between paragraphs 133 and 135 of the ‘Sanctions Policy’ and the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, ‘Interim Orders’. Accordingly, it was first required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to consider the application. If satisfied that it had jurisdiction, it must then decide whether the application should be decided in the absence of the Registrant. If the issue should be decided in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel must then consider whether there are risks that satisfied one or more of the three grounds that could justify the making of an Interim Order. Those grounds are, (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public, (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest, and (iii) that it is in the interests of the registrant concerned. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the default position established by the legislation governing this process is that when a substantive sanction is imposed, there will be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain extant. Accordingly, something more than the fact that a substantive sanction has been imposed is required to justify the making of an Interim Order. The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach.

4. Included in the notice of hearing email sent to the Registrant on 8 May 2025, the following paragraph appeared: “Please note that if the Panel finds that it is necessary to do so, it may also impose an interim order (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001) at any stage during the hearing. An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect”. The Panel concluded that this afforded the Registrant the opportunity of making representations on the issue of whether an Interim Order should be made, and for that reason provided jurisdiction for the application to be considered by the Panel.

5. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to decide the application in the absence of the Registrant; when such an application is made there is necessarily a degree of urgency in deciding the matter, the Registrant was informed in the notice of hearing that such an application might be made and there is no reason to believe that the Registrant would wish to be heard on the matter if the Panel did not deal with it at the present time.

6. Whilst acknowledging the default position that there is no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise whilst their appeal rights remain outstanding, the Panel concluded that in the present case, an Interim Order is required. It is necessary for protection of members of the public and it is otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel in its substantive sanction decision.

7. The Panel considered whether interim conditions of practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period, but concluded that, for the same reasons a Substantive Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate, interim conditions of practice would not provide sufficient protection.

8. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

9. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An Order of that length is necessary because the final resolution of an appeal could well take 18 months if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Order, the Interim Order will simply fall away when the time within which she could have commenced an appeal passes.

INTERIM ORDER: 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.

History of Hearings for Wendy Thomas