Juan P Saunar

Background
1. On 30 June 2020, the HCPC had received a referral from East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust in relation to the Registrant who was employed by them as a Band 5 Radiographer. The allegations within the referral were sexual in nature. Prior to the conclusion of East Sussex Hospital’s own investigation into these matters, the Registrant left the trust. He did not fully participate in the investigation and accordingly these matters did not proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

2. The allegations were investigated by the HCPC. During that investigation the Registrant sought to coerce a witness into providing HCPC with a supporting statement. On 27-30 June 2022, the matter was heard substantively, but, prior to the close of the HCPC’s case, the hearing was stopped due to the panel deciding its registrant member should recuse himself on the grounds of apparent bias.

3. On 11, 14-18, and 21 October 2024 the substantive hearing recommenced before a fresh panel. That panel found the allegations (as set out above) proved. Misconduct was established and the Registrant’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired. The panel imposed a sanction order of four months suspension (with review). The Order followed findings that a significant number of allegations had been proved against the Registrant, some of which were found to be ‘sexual’. An 18 month interim suspension was also imposed.

4. On 17 February 2025, the Registrant was served with notice of this substantive order review hearing.

Submissions for the HCPC
5. Mr Wigg for the HCPC reminded the Panel of its role and powers in conducting this review. He outlined the background and the allegations found proved against the Registrant. He advised that the PSA had appealed the decision and that appeal is not being contested by the HCPC. However, the current PSA appeal has no bearing on the Panel’s role today in reviewing the substantive order.

6. Mr Wigg reminded the Panel that it should consider the Registrant’s current fitness to practise, and what steps he has taken to improve his practice and the extent to which he has developed insight into the misconduct found. He submitted that the reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment…[have] been sufficiently addressed”. As the decision in Abraheam v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) indicates, in practical terms this places a “persuasive burden” on the registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he or she has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”.

7. The panel at the final hearing found impairment on both the personal and public components. It found that there was no evidence of remorse, regret, insight or other remediation from the Registrant. It further found that the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, stating:-
”The Committee further found that there was a very real risk that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct and would thereby pose a risk of similar harm to colleagues or other members of the public in future if permitted to practise unrestricted. In relation to the public component, the Committee found that R had breached a fundamental tenant of the profession and had brought the profession into disrepute by reason of his misconduct. He had indulged in sexual behaviour with Colleagues 1 and 4, had repeatedly breached professional boundaries with Colleagues 1 and 5, and had indulged in coercive behaviour with Colleague 4 in an attempt to evade appropriate action by his Regulator.”

8. In relation to its decision to impose a suspension order, the panel at the final hearing concluded that “a period of suspension would protect the public from the risk of harm for so long as the Order was in place. The Panel also concluded that confidence in the profession would be upheld, and standards would be maintained, if a period of suspension were to be imposed in light of the low level of seriousness of the misconduct which had been found.”

9. In relation to striking off, that panel gave consideration to a Striking Off Order but it concluded that would “…be disproportionate in light of the low level of seriousness of the misconduct, which did not cross the threshold into the need for Striking Off in the judgement of the Panel. In reaching its conclusion, the Panel took account of the significant adverse financial and reputational consequences that such an order would be likely to have for the Registrant.”

10. Mr Wigg submitted that the Registrant had taken steps to remediate and had taken courses to be considered by the Panel. He submitted that these did not quite go to the issues that were required to be remediated in this case. He submitted that the public component had not been addressed by the Registrant.

11. Mr Wigg submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. He submitted that the critical issue was public protection and the public interest. He advised that the current suspension order expires on 18 March 2025. He submitted that a further suspension order should be imposed and that the period was a matter for the Panel, the maximum period available being 12 months.

The Registrant’s Evidence
12. The Registrant took the affirmation. He read out his written reflection. He said that he took full responsibility and accepted his conduct was unprofessional and was immature and insensitive, failing to appreciate the impact of his actions on others. He fully acknowledged that “he was the problem” and this had been a wake up call. He said that he had since completed refresher training in professional ethics and conduct. He had accepted that the problem was him and he apologised to all those effected. The Registrant said that he was ashamed and that he regretted his conduct and took full responsibility for what happened.

13. The Registrant said that he had asked his former managers, from who he had previously received positive written testimonials regarding his clinical practice, to provide further testimonials but time was against him. He now appreciated that professionalism included respect for colleagues as well as his own behaviour. He said that he had changed and he was not the same person and was not a risk to the public. He said his conduct would never happen again. He said that he was now more mindful of his actions and he was seeking to grow and develop. He said he must earn trust and it was difficult to regain after his past conduct but he was committed to showing that he had changed and making a positive impact. He said he was now more mature and self-aware, he was mindful of the impact of his actions on others and he reflected daily on his actions.

14. In cross examination, the Registrant accepted that whilst he had not, at the time, had bad intentions he realised now the impact on others was bad. He said his behaviour towards his colleagues had been the problem and that had created a risk to patients.

15. In response to Panel questions, the Registrant said that his conduct to colleagues can affect patient care as it will have made them feel uncomfortable and unsafe. He said that the image on his teams icon was a hand gesture that he used for entertainment in his Facebook page.

16. The Registrant said that when he works now he thinks about how he will approach his colleagues to avoid causing offence. He keeps his private life separate from the work place. He said he had been “overly friendly.” The Registrant said he was currently home in the Philippines and he was unemployed and looking after his family, but he has tried to register as a radiographer in the Philippines. In January 2025 he did a course on understanding and preventing sexual harassment. He said this can include words not just actions and what you say can impact and can be harassing.

Closing Submissions
17. Mr Wigg concluded by adding that the Registrant appeared to “down play” some of his actions and there was a lack of understanding of the risk to patients caused by the Registrant’s actions. Mr Wigg submitted that there was a continuing lack of insight and the Registrant’s fitness to practise was still impaired.

18. The Registrant said he had been immature and very insensitive and he had learned from this. He asked for a chance to prove that he had changed.

Decision
19. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He reminded the Panel that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive appraisal of the Registrant to decide if he is currently fit to practise and can return to unrestricted practice. Its role is not to conduct a rehearing of the allegations or to go behind the previous factual findings. In carrying out this assessment, the Panel must exercise its own professional judgment on impairment and be mindful of the HCPC guidance and relevant case law, including CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin).

20. The Legal Assessor advised that if the Panel decide that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired, it should have regard to the HCPC guidance on sanctions, and be mindful of the principles of fairness and proportionality. He reminded the Panel that any sanction it imposes should be the least restrictive order that would suffice to protect the public and the wider public interest. The current PSA appeal must have no bearing on the Panel’s decision and on the exercise of its powers on review.
21. The Panel considered all the information before it, Mr Wigg’s submissions and the Registrant’s evidence and submissions. It accepted the legal advice, and it considered the HCPC guidance and the case of Abraheam v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin).

22. The Panel found that the Registrant has shown regret and remorse and he has apologised in general terms. He has done a number of relevant courses. The Panel found that his insight is developing and he appeared to grasp, for this first time in his live evidence, that there was a link between his conduct and behaviour and patient safety. However, his remorse and insight were in generic terms and lacked evidence in support of any change.

23. The Panel noted that the Registrant described his conduct in his live evidence as “over friendly.” Whilst the Panel appreciated that English is not his first language, this phrase is a deflection and it significantly downplays his repeated, unwanted sexual conduct towards several female colleagues. The Registrant appeared to understand, to an extent, the impact of his conduct on his colleagues, but his use of that phrase to describe his conduct was of real concern as it fails to sufficiently and appropriately acknowledge the serious nature or the gravity of the misconduct. His misconduct was far more serious than a misjudgement as to friendliness.

24. The original panel found that there was “a very real risk that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct and would thereby pose a risk of similar harm to colleagues or other members of the public in future.” The Panel concluded that whilst the Registrant has taken some positive steps towards remedying his practice and his insight is developing, his insight remains insufficient. The Panel concluded that he continues to present a real risk of repetition as he does not appear to fully understand the gravity of his misconduct as well as the impact on both colleagues and patient safety. The Panel found that a risk of harm therefore continues, as identified by the original panel.

25. The Panel found that the Registrant had not addressed the finding of attempted coercion of a witness which was found proved (particular 9 of the allegation). This is a serious matter and the Registrant did not acknowledge or address this finding within his reflection or his evidence. There was no evidence of insight or remediation in respect of this distinct, significant finding of misconduct. This finding alone strikes at the heart of the essential and fundamental professional standard of integrity.

26. As regards the wider public interest, the Panel has found a lack of sufficient insight and remediation. It decided that a reasonable and well informed member of the public would be concerned were the Registrant not to be found to be currently impaired. His conduct has been found to have placed the public at risk of harm and this Panel has found that, albeit his insight is developing, there remains a risk of repetition and a consequent risk of harm. There was no evidence of insight into the coercion finding. The Panel found that not to find the Registrant impaired in such circumstances would undermine public confidence in both the profession and the regulator, and would fail to uphold proper professional standards.

27. The Panel therefore decided on both the personal and public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired.

28. The Panel next considered the HCPC Sanctions Policy. It was mindful of the need to act proportionately and to keep the public interest at the forefront of its mind. It found that to take no action or a Caution Order would fail to reflect the nature or the gravity of the misconduct findings and the risk of harm identified.

29. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. It was mindful of paragraphs 76 and 77 on seriousness, and paragraphs 107 and 108 on condtions of practice in the HCPC Sanctions Guidance. Any conditions imposed must be realistic, workable, proportionate and sufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence. The findings in this case include sexual misconduct, both in and outside the workplace, as well as attempted coercion of a witness. The Panel found both to be serious, attitudinal deficiencies that are not liable to be sufficiently managed and dealt with by conditions of practice. The Panel decided that it could not devise realistic, workable or proportionate conditions given these concerns, particularly given the continuing lack of insight.

30. The Panel decided that a further period of suspension was appropriate and proportionate. That order reflects the seriousness of the misconduct and protects the public. The Registrant has developing insight and has taken some steps to remediate elements of his misconduct. The Panel was satisfied that there is evidence to indicate that the Registrant has a genuine willingness to remediate and to resolve the issues with his practice, but he has some way to go.

31. The Panel decided that a four months suspension order would be proportionate and would properly reflect the seriousness whilst providing further opportunity to allow for the issues to be fully addressed and resolved by the Registrant. Meantime, the public are fully protected.

32. The Panel did not consider, in these circumstances and at this time, that nothing less than a Striking Off Order would suffice. The misconduct has not been repeated and the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has shown a real willingness to resolve the issues.

33. A further reviewing panel would likely be assisted by the following:-
• Attendance at the next hearing whether virtually or in person
• Evidence / testimonials from colleagues addressing the Registrant’s attitude and behaviour towards colleagues
• Character references from the UK or the Philippines about his conduct and behaviour to colleagues in any paid or unpaid work.
• A written reflection on his sexual conduct towards colleagues and his attempted coercion of a colleague.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Juan P Saunar for a further period of 4 months on the expiry of the existing order.

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 Juan P Saunar