Joseph William Yeardley

Preliminary Matters
Service

1.  The Panel had evidence before it that the Notice of Hearing letter had been sent by email on the 16 April 2025 to the Registrant’s registered email address. The Panel had proof that it had been successfully delivered to that email address and that this was the email address shown on the HCPC Register.

2.  The Panel, having received legal advice, reviewed that Notice of Hearing letter to ensure that it contained the correct relevant information relating to today’s hearing. The Panel was satisfied that it did, and that it had been sent by the HCPTS more than 28 days ahead of today’s hearing. This being the case, the Panel found that there had been good service.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant.

3.     The HCPC made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In support of that application the HCPC took the Panel to the file note of a conversation the Registrant had with the HCPC case manager on 22 May 2025, in which the Registrant acknowledges that he has received the paperwork relating to this hearing, and is recorded as stating that he will not be attending this review hearing.

4.     The HCPC highlighted the following factors as being relevant to this Panel’s decision:
·       The Registrant did not attend the final hearing.
·       There is no application for an adjournment.
·       Given the terms in which the Registrant is recorded as stating that he will not be attending the hearing. From this it is to be assumed that he has made an informed decision not to so attend.
·       There is nothing before this Panel to indicate that the Registrant is any more likely to attend a hearing on another date.
·       There is public interest in this matter being considered today as the substantive suspension order in place will come to an end on 4 June 2025, which is only just over a week away.
·       In all the circumstances it can be assumed that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself.

5.     The Panel took and accepted the legal advice that it should balance the interests of the Registrant in having the ability to attend and make representations with those of the wider public interest.

6.     The Panel concluded that it would proceed today for the reasons identified by the HCPC Presenting Officer. The Panel placed particular weight upon the terms used by the Registrant within his discussion with the case manager. It was clear that the Registrant had intentionally disengaged with the HCPC process: a process which he considered ‘lengthy’ and ‘far too excessive’. In the Panel’s view, this stated position indicated that any adjournment would service no purpose, and would not result in the Registrant’s future participation.
Background (as recorded within the substantive hearing decision).

7.     The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP). He was employed as a Theatre Practitioner within the Rotherham Foundation Trust (the Trust) at Rotherham Hospital between April 2017 and September 2021, when he was dismissed.

8.     On 17 March 2021, Colleague C, a Healthcare Support Worker, informed Mr JB, the Matron for Theatres of an alleged incident which had occurred the day before between himself and the Registrant. He alleged that the Registrant had squeezed his buttocks in the hospital corridor and it was not the first time that it had happened. This alleged incident is the subject matter of particular 1(a).

9.     Mr JB asked Colleague C to prepare a statement outlining the incidents that had occurred with the Registrant, while also providing more information about the incident on 16 March 2021. On 18 March 2021, Colleague C sent Mr JB an email outlining all the alleged incidents between himself and the Registrant,  including  the  16  March  2021.The  incidents outlined in the email are the subject of particulars 1(a) to 1(e). 

10. Mr JB escalated the matter  and  Mr  LW,  Matron  for  Trauma  and  Orthopaedic  Surgery  at  the  hospital  was  appointed  to  investigate  the  allegations  on  27  April  2021.  As part  of  his  investigation,  Mr  LW  interviewed a number of members of staff, including Colleague C (on 10 May 2021). He also interviewed the Registrant on 20 May 2021. 

11. During the course of Colleague C’s interview on 10 May 2021, he said he was aware of an incident with Colleague D. As a result, Mr LW interviewed Colleague D  on  21  May  2021.  She alleged  that  there  had  been  an  occasion  when  the  Registrant  had  made  a  comment  to  her  about  uncrossing her legs. This allegation is the subject matter of particular 2. It is further alleged at particular 4 that the comment was of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated.   

12. Following Mr LW’s  investigation, a formal disciplinary  hearing  was  held,  and  the  consequence  was  that  the  Registrant  was  dismissed  from  the  Trust. It is alleged that the Registrant did not notify the HCPC of the fact of  and  reason  for  his  dismissal  as  required  by  the  HCPC  Standards  of  Conduct, Performance and Ethics. This is the subject matter of particular 3.

Substantive hearing outcome

13. The panel at the substantive hearing made no findings in relation to Particulars 1(b), 1(d), 1(e) and 3 and considered that the Registrant’s actions were of a sexual nature and not sexually motivated.  

14. That panel had found that the Registrant’s failings had adversely impacted upon his colleagues and amounted to a breach of the standards of behaviour expected of an ODP and so made a finding of misconduct.

15. The Registrant had failed to engage in the HCPC process and had not attended the hearing therefore the Registrant’s response to the matters had been based upon the responses he made during the internal investigation.

16. The substantive hearing panel identified that the Registrant had a lack of insight into the impact that his actions had upon his colleagues and had not evidenced any steps to change his behaviour.

17. In the absence of any meaningful information from the Registrant that panel was unable to impose any lesser sanction than a period of suspension.

Documentation before the Panel

18. In addition to the service and hearing bundles, the Panel had a copy of the case manager’s telephone file note of a conversation they had with the Registrant on 22 May 2025, in which the Registrant is recorded as stating:
o   that he felt the HCPC process and gone on for far too long - Gone on for 4 years. Far to excessive 

o   He has no intention of returning to practising.

o   Mistake was made by him, he is sorry for the mistake - it wasn’t intentional

o   Ridiculous how it gone on – dragged on for 4 years and think the whole thing is pathetic.

o   Not phased whether they strike him off – he is nearly 60 years old.  

o   Knows what he has done wrong and started off as a it of banter, taken wrong way and what he has been put through is ridiculous he has been ridiculed.  

o   Sexuality questioned and gone on and on and on – if he wasn’t in right frame of mind could have done something detrimental to his own health with how long and punitive this process has been.

o   He thought he was suspended for 12 months from April last year and then after the 12 moths he would be allowed to practice with support, however, he doesn’t care about going back to practice as he has no intention of returning to practice.

HCPC submissions

19. The HCPC noted that at the substantive hearing the Panel had been able to identify from the various documentation before it and the lack of engagement by the Registrant that there had been little understanding of the impact his conduct had upon his colleagues. In relation to colleague C there had been some limited insight but in relation to colleague D he had shown none.

20. This Panel was also invited to note that the Registrant’s view that this was just a case of ‘banter’, and the reaction to it was disproportionate, was considered by the substantive hearing panel to show little insight into the significance of his actions. The ‘banter’ was found by that panel to have been of a sexual nature and so considered as a serious matter which, in the absence of any remediation, warranted the sanction of suspension.

21. The HCPC noted that from the Registrant’s response to the case manager on the 22 May 2025, it appeared that he had assumed that the period of suspension would automatically come to an end and he would be able to return to work. The Registrant has stated that he has received all relevant correspondence, this being the case, it would be apparent from paragraph 117 of the substantive hearing decision, that further engagement was required by the Registrant before he could return to practice.

22. It was submitted by the HCPC that in the absence of any of the evidence highlighted by the substantive hearing panel and in view of the statements made to the case manager there is nothing to support the position that there has been remediation of the misconduct. It is the HCPC’s view that in the absence of any remediation and demonstration of insight the Registrant remains impaired, on both the personal and public components.

23. In terms of sanction, it is a matter for the Panel. However, the HCPC considered that there is sufficient lack of insight and demonstration of an unwillingness to resolve matters, to warrant the Panel giving further consideration of whether a striking off order is, at this stage, now appropriate and proportionate.  

Decision     

24. The Panel sought the Legal Assessor’s advice on the matters which it should take into account. Her advice was that the primary consideration at this hearing was whether there is evidence to support the position that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired. In considering the issue of impairment the Legal Assessor emphasised that in undertaking this task the Panel should take into account the principles set out in the case of Cohen. Was the misconduct capable of remedy, is there now evidence of appropriate and sufficient remediation and also, whether there remains a risk of repetition of the conduct. In this regard the Panel will take into account the Registrant’s current state of mind in relation to those matters which were found at the substantive hearing

25. If this is not the case, and the Panel conclude that the Registrant still poses a risk to the public, then the Panel should go on to consider what is the appropriate and proportionate restriction to place upon their registration. For this, the Panel should refer to the HCPTS guidance within the published Sanctions Policy. Guidance, which was persuasive in nature; this provided the Panel with a framework for its deliberations and decision-making process.

26. The Panel started by considering what evidence there was that the Registrant had addressed his former failings. The only documentation that discloses anything of the Registrant’s actions and state of mind is the file note of 22 May 2025.

27. In that file note the Registrant was recorded as stating that he considered his actions as ‘mistakes; for which he ‘was sorry’ but which he stated were ‘not intentional’. From this it is clear that the Registrant had gained no insight into the gravity of his conduct and its impact on his colleagues: colleagues who would have been adversely affected by the complaint process and required courage to continue with their concerns to a substantive hearing. The Panel noted that the Registrant considered that the response to his misconduct had been taken out of all proportion and he has been treated harshly.

28. The Panel has nothing from the Registrant that would evidence any steps taken by him to remediate his misconduct. There is therefore nothing before the Panel which would provide it with any confidence that there would not be a repetition of that conduct in the future. This being the case, the Panel finds that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practice remains impaired.

29. In relation to the public component of its decision, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s current position appeared to be that he is the victim of the HCPC’s, in his view, ‘lengthy’ process. It was clear from this that the Registrant had gained little or no understanding of the HCPC process and the need for registered practitioners to uphold standards and retain the public’s confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. There was no evidence that this period of suspension had resulted in an increase in his level of understanding of this wider public interest. This being the case, the Panel find that there is current impairment on the public component.

30. Having determined that the Registrant’s Fitness to Practise  is  currently  impaired, the Panel went on to consider whether the current order remained the appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Panel took into account the HCPC representations on this issue.  The Panel also appreciated this being a case of misconduct, it had all sanctions options available to it. As directed the Panel started at the bottom of the scale and moved upwards until it found the appropriate and proportionate sanction.   

31. The Panel noted that in his telephone responses recorded on 22 May 2025 the Registrant had stated that he did not have any intention of returning to practice. He stated that he was of an age when he would not wish to return to practice and that he did not care if he were struck off the Register.

32. The option of mediation was available to the Panel but remained in the Panel’s view as unsuitable.

33. The Panel was of the view that this case remained too serious to take no action. Such a course would not address the continuing risk of repetition and given the absence of evidence of insight and remediation would not be in the interests of service users, colleagues or in the wider public interest. Further, the Panel was of the view that taking no action would send the wrong message to the public and the profession.

34. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Caution Order. The Panel was mindful that such a  sanction  would  not  restrict  the  Registrant’s  practice. The Panel did not consider that a Caution Order was sufficient to protect the public, given that it had not been able to rule out a risk of repetition. Also, the Panel did not consider that the criteria set out in the Policy were met for when a Caution Order may be appropriate.

35. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order could now be considered as an appropriate and proportionate response. The Panel had regard to the specific factors set out in the Policy which may make a Conditions of Practice Order appropriate.  In particular  it  was  of  the  view  that  the  following factors were not present:

·       The Registrant has gained insight;

·       Appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions could be formulated; and

·       Confident  that  the  Registrant  would be willing to comply  with  the  conditions.

36. The  Panel  bore  in  mind  that  at the substantive hearing the  Registrant  had  demonstrated only limited insight in respect of Colleague C and none in respect of Colleague D. The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s behaviour and his most recent response to the HCPC remained attitudinal in nature.  Therefore, although the Panel was of the view that whilst his misconduct remained capable of remediation, it did  not  consider  that  conditions  could  readily  be  formulated  which  were  appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable. Furthermore, the Panel was of the view that even  if  conditions  could  be  formulated,  it  was  not  confident  that  the  Registrant  would  comply  with  them,  given  his  continued lack  of  engagement with the HCPC and this hearing.  In all the circumstances the  Panel  did  not  consider  that  a  Conditions  of  Practice  Order  was  the  appropriate  and  proportionate  measure.

37. The Panel then went on to consider whether a further period of suspension would provide any benefit to either the Registrant or be in the wider public interest.

38. The Registrant has shown no willingness in the last twelve months to produce anything which would support his return to practice. The Registrant has not engaged in the HCPC process nor this review hearing. Further, he is now recorded as stating that he has no intention of returning to practice and at this age no wish to. This being the case, it appeared that an extension of his period of suspension would serve no benefit to the Registrant.

39. In the absence of any indication that a further period of suspension would serve to engage the Registrant and encourage his return to practice the use of time and energies in undertaking a further review would, in the Panel’s view, involve unnecessary expenditure for the profession and the regulator.

40. This being the case, the Panel as invited by the HCPC, considered the terms of the paragraph 131 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy. This stated that were a registrant lacks insight and has shown an unwillingness to resolve matters a striking off order may be appropriate. The Panel noted that the Registrant has shown an unwillingness to resolve matters and by the terms in which he chose to express his views on past failings has demonstrated a continuing lack of insight. This therefore led the Panel to the view that a striking off order is now the appropriate and proportionate measure in this case and one which will be in the wider public interest.  Such a measure will also serve to send the right measure to fellow practitioners that conduct of this nature is serious and should not be a part of modern-day practice.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike off the name of Mr Joseph William Yeardley from the Register at the expiration of the current substantive suspension order on 4 June 2025.

The Order imposed today will apply from 04 June 2025.

History of Hearings for Joseph William Yeardley