Ross Wheeler

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’) provide at paragraph 3(1)(b) that notice may be served on a registrant by posting it to their address as it appears in the register or sending it to an electronic mail address provided by the registrant for communications. Paragraph 6(2) of the Rules confirms that at least 28 days notice of a hearing must be provided to a registrant.

2. The Panel reviewed a 7 page Service Bundle which contained a notice of hearing, sent to the Registrant on 30 January 2025 via email at 16:04, and an extract of the Register showing the contact details provided by the Registrant and held by the HCPC. It also received legal advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied, and was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Service of Documents’.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been duly served upon the Registrant via his email address more than 28 days before the hearing. It was therefore content that the HCPC had discharged its duty to ensure that the Registrant had been afforded an opportunity to appear before it and be heard, as set out at Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (‘the Order’). In these circumstances, the Panel determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected.

Proceeding in Absence

4. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. He reminded the Panel that the Registrant’s daughter indicated via email that he did not intend to attend the hearing. The Registrant had not requested an adjournment or to have representation at the hearing. In the circumstances, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel was entitled to find that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings and therefore that the hearing should proceed in his absence.

5. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it applied, and had regard to the practice notes provided by the HCPTS in relation to proceeding in the absence of the Registrant. It noted that the Registrant’s daughter confirmed via email on 6 January 2025 and 2 February 2025 that he would not be attending the hearing and would like it to proceed in his absence.

6. Having determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected by the HCPTS, the Panel carefully considered all of the circumstances of the case to inform its assessment of the fairness to the HCPC, the public and the Registrant in respect of whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. It noted that the notice of hearing specifically informed the Registrant that the hearing could proceed in his absence if proper notice was given of the hearing.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting as required by the Rules. It was also satisfied that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to engage the Registrant in the proceedings. The email correspondence provided to the Panel also referred to a telephone conversation with the Registrant’s daughter though no note of this was provided to the Panel. It indicated that the HCPTS had suggested that arrangements could be made for the Registrant to attend in person given the email of 2 February 2025 states “I discussed with him yesterday the opportunity for him to attend in person. He expressed his gratitude for being offered the opportunity, but he would rather not attend at this point in time. Please proceed with next steps without him present.”

8. The Registrant therefore was, in the Panel’s view, maintaining engagement with the regulator via his daughter and consistently stating that he did not wish to attend the hearing. There had been no request for an adjournment by the Registrant, nor had he expressed an interest in being represented at the hearing. There was no indication that the Registrant would attend the hearing on a future date in the event that the hearing was adjourned.

9. In considering fairness to the HCPC and the public when making its decision whether to proceed with the hearing or not, the Panel noted that the HCPC attended the hearing and was in a position to proceed. The steps it had taken to secure the Registrant’s attendance were reasonable in all the circumstances.

10. The Panel gave careful consideration to the prejudice that may be caused to the Registrant by the matter proceeding in his absence but was content that it would test the HCPC’s case in any event when forming any judgement, thereby mitigating any disadvantage as much as possible. It was mindful of the practice note issued by the HCPTS in respect of ‘Unrepresented Registrants’ and the fact that registrants should not be able to frustrate the efficient administration of regulatory matters by simply not engaging in the proceedings. The Panel could provide the Registrant with copies of its determination at each stage of the proceedings so that the Registrant could re-engage with the proceedings at any point in the hearing should he wish to do so.

11. In the circumstances, the Panel determined that the public interest favoured the proceedings continuing in the absence of the Registrant given the age of the allegation, the fact that the HCPC was in a position to proceed and that the Registrant indicated he did not wish to attend or be represented at the hearing. It was satisfied that the hearing could proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Proceeding in Private

12. The Panel noted that the Registrant provided information in respect of his health in his letter of 18 July 2024 to the Investigating Committee Panel. It was mindful of the practice note – ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ – and the provisions of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Panel was content, of its own volition, for consideration of matters referring to the health of the Registrant to be undertaken in private. It was appropriate and in the interests of open justice for the rest of the hearing to proceed in public.

Application to amend the allegation

13. The Presenting Officer informed the Panel that although the Statement of Case indicated that the HCPC would apply for discontinuance of particular 1, 3 and 4, he instead intended to offer no evidence in respect of those particulars, and invited the Panel to amend the particulars as follows:

As a registered Operating Department Practitioner (ODP13965):

1. You failed to notify the HCPC as soon as possible that you were suspended by your employer on or around 29 July 2022.

2. On 3 January 2024 at Birmingham Crown Court, you were convicted of assault a female 13 and over by penetration with part of body / a thing contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

3. Your conduct set out at particular 1 was dishonest.

4. The matters set out a particulars 1 and/or 3 above constitute misconduct.

5. 2. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or conviction.

14. The Registrant made no submissions in relation to the HCPC’s proposals in respect of particulars 1, 3 and 4 or the amendment of original particular 5.

15. The Panel received, accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. It noted that it was able to amend an allegation at any stage in the proceedings in pursuit of its overriding duty to protect the public and ensure cases are heard fairly, justly and without delay. Further, it can make a stylistic drafting change which does not affect the substance of the case alleged against the Registrant.

16. The Panel noted that the Registrant was informed that the HCPC intended to discontinue particulars 1, 3 and 4 as a consequence of the Statement of Case served upon him. The Statement of Case records that “On 29 January 2025, the Registrant was put on notice of the HCPC’s intention to apply to discontinue the allegation in part at the outset of the final hearing and the Registrant has not raised any objection to this approach” but the Panel have been provided with no confirmation as to how this notice was communicated to the Registrant. It is not contained within the Notice of Hearing dated 30 January 2025 or the email correspondence from the HCPTS dated 8 January 2025, which were available to the Panel.

17. The Panel was mindful that the HCPTS practice note on ‘Discontinuance of proceedings’ provides that the HCPC should not seek to pursue an allegation which has no realistic prospect of success, and instead should apply to discontinue the proceedings. However, it goes on to state that “if the HCPC no longer intends to pursue all or part of an allegation at a substantive hearing, as the matter is already before a Panel, the appropriate course of action is for the HCPC to ‘offer no evidence’ at that hearing rather than make a separate discontinuance application. Further, paragraph 12 of the practice note provides that “If an allegation is partially discontinued, a freshly constituted panel will consider the revised allegation. The Panel considering the discontinuance application must also ensure that the revised allegation is coherently drafted and, in particular, that no essential background detail has been removed, as the Panel which hears the revised allegation will not be made aware of that partial discontinuance”.

18. The Statement of Case provided to the Panel asserted that Particulars 1, 3 and 4 would not be pursued as “During the investigation process, after the ICP decision, the HCPC obtained evidence from the Registrant’s employer that does not support the allegation that the Registrant failed to notify the HCPC that he had been suspended by his employer.”.

19. The Panel is charged with ensuring that fitness to practise proceedings are fair to the HCPC, the public and the Registrant, whilst upholding the fundamental objective of protecting the public. In this respect the Panel was content that it was appropriate and proportionate to amend Particular 5 as requested to remove “misconduct and/or” given the stated intention of the Presenting Officer to offer no evidence in respect of Particulars 1, 3 and 4.

20. However, the Panel concluded that it could only make such an amendment once the position in respect of Particulars 1, 3 and 4 is determined.

21. If the application to discontinue progressed as proposed in the Statement of Case, and the Practice Notice on discontinuance was followed strictly, the Panel would need to assess the application (as it cannot simply agree to discontinuance without due inquiry) and be satisfied that the rationale for the discontinuance is sound and doesn’t amount to under-prosecution. It would also involve determining that there is no realistic prospect of the allegation, or part of it, being established - the nature and scope of the Panel’s inquiry would depend on the reasons advanced by the HCPC for discontinuance. Further, having considered the partial discontinuance proposal, the Panel would then be required to remit consideration of the matter to a freshly constituted panel.

22. In this case however, the Presenting Officer submitted to the Panel that he intended to offer no evidence for particulars 1, 3 and 4. The usual process would be for the Panel to determine its factual findings on all particulars, reaching a formal finding that particulars 1, 3 and 4 are not well founded on the basis of no evidence being offered. At that point, the Panel would amend the remaining particulars as necessary. Accordingly, receiving an application to amend particular 5 as a preliminary issue could, in the absence of discontinuance or such a determination on facts, be considered to be premature.

23. The Panel carefully considered whether dealing with the proposed renumbering of particulars 2 and 5 and the amendment of particular 5 is fair to all parties and serves the overarching objective of protecting the public. It was content that the Registrant was aware of the intention to reduce the number of particulars against him, regardless of how that is achieved, and that this clearly did not amount to a detriment to him – rather, it could be said that the removal of 3 particulars, one of which asserted dishonesty – was beneficial to him.

24. Had the matter proceeded as an application for discontinuance, the Panel was mindful that the allegation in any event does not address:

a. the apparent failure by the Registrant, the police and the employer to notify the regulator of the Registrant’s arrest on 19 February 2022;
b. that the Registrant renewed his registration on 2 September 2022 without declaring his arrest or suspension from his employment

and it could have been required to give careful consideration as to whether the particulars appropriately reflected the serious nature of the information before it.

25. Given that the Presenting Officer intended to offer no evidence in respect of particulars 1, 3 and 4, the Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate for Particulars 1, 3 and 4 to be formally found to be not well founded. It follows therefore that although the effect of this decision is to leave 2 particulars outstanding, it is appropriate for the request to re-number them to be refused. The proposed amendment to Particular 5 does not, in the Panel’s view, cause any disadvantage to the Registrant or materially impact the case against him, and is therefore agreed.

Background and undisputed Facts

26. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP13965). He commenced employment with the Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) on 1 November 2000, and at the material time worked at Birmingham Children’s Hospital (‘the Hospital’) as a Band 7 theatres Practitioner.

27. On 17 February 2022 it was alleged that the Registrant sexually assaulted a female colleague (‘Colleague A’) on Hospital premises. The Registrant was arrested by Police on 19 February 2022 as part of the criminal investigation into the allegation. The Trust was informed of the arrest by the Registrant’s family on 21 February 2022 and the Registrant commenced sick leave that day until 28 July 2022.

28. The Registrant resigned from his employment on 20 July 2022, with effect from 20 October 2022. He was suspended from his employment on 29 July 2022 following his return to work from sick leave. He was informed that the Trust would inform the HCPC of his suspension. This referral was made by the Trust on 13 September 2022. The disciplinary investigation by the Trust was suspended pending resolution of the criminal investigation. The Registrant’s employment with the Trust ended on 13 December 2022.

29. On 24 October 2022 the Registrant was charged with sexually assaulting a woman without consent, contrary to section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

30. The Registrant attended Magistrates Court on 9 December 2022 and pleaded not guilty. The matter was sent to Birmingham Crown Court for trial. On 3 January 2024 the Registrant was found guilty. He was sentenced on 8 February 2024 to 5 years’ imprisonment and required to register with the police under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

31. On 29 January 2024 the Trust concluded its disciplinary investigation, informing the Registrant via letter that it considered his conduct to amount to gross misconduct. Had the Registrant remained in the employment of the Trust, it would have summarily dismissed the Registrant.

Decision on Facts

32. The Panel listened carefully to the submissions of the Presenting Officer. He directed the Panel’s attention to the Certificate of Conviction issued by Birmingham Crown Court and the transcript of the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Inman. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel was entitled to find the conviction proved as a result of the evidence provided.

33. The Registrant made no comment on the conviction save for the comments in a letter dated 18 July 2024 indicating that he denied the offence and said that what had happened was consensual.

34. Legal advice was provided to the Panel by the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied. The Panel carefully considered the documentary evidence provided to it and had regard to the practice notes to which it had been referred. It was mindful that it was obliged to approach the consideration of an allegation sequentially, determining firstly whether the facts set out in the allegation are proved, then whether those facts amount to the statutory ground set out in the allegation and if so, whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

35. In determining whether an allegation is “well founded” or “proved”, the Panel was required to decide firstly whether the HCPC, which has the burden of persuasion in relation to the facts alleged, has discharged that burden.

1: You failed to notify the HCPC as soon as possible that you were suspended by your employer on or around 29 July 2022 – NOT PROVED

36. The HCPC offered no evidence in respect of this particular. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the particular was not proved on the balance of probability.

2: On 3 January 2024 at Birmingham Crown Court, you were convicted of assault a female 13 and over by penetration with part of body / a thing contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – PROVED

37. The Panel was satisfied that the certified copy of conviction, issued by Birmingham Crown Court, was proof of the Registrant’s conviction of the criminal offence of assaulting a female 13 and over by penetration with part of body / a thing contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This particular was proved on the balance of probability.

3. Your conduct set out at particular 1 was dishonest – NOT PROVED

38. The HCPC offered no evidence in respect of this particular. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the particular was not proved on the balance of probability.

4. The matters set out a particulars 1 and / or 3 above constitute misconduct – NOT PROVED

39. The HCPC offered no evidence in respect of this particular. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the particular was not proved on the balance of probability.

Decision on Grounds

40. The Presenting Officer submitted that whether the proven facts amount to the statutory ground of conviction is a matter of judgement for the Panel.

41. The Registrant made no submissions in respect of the statutory ground.

42. Having found particular 2 proved, the Panel was required to judge whether a statutory ground of impairment, as set out within the Order at article 22(1), as advanced by the HCPC, was engaged. It was conscious that deciding the issue of statutory ground was a matter for its own judgement and that it needed to consider the issue of statutory ground of impairment in respect of the particular found proved.

43. The Panel took into account the oral submissions of the Presenting Officer, accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance issued by the HCPTS entitled ‘Conviction and Caution Allegation’. It was mindful that the statutory ground of conviction being proved would only lead to further action being taken against a registrant if, as a consequence of that conviction or caution, the registrant’s fitness to practise is found to be impaired.

44. The Panel was satisfied that the statutory ground of impairment, as set out in Article 22(1) (a(iii) was made out in respect of the Registrant.

Decision on Impairment

45. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and provided no evidence as to his current fitness to practise.

46. The Presenting Officer submitted that whether the facts found proved and the statutory ground amounts to current impairment is a matter for the Panel. He reminded the Panel that a number of cases were relevant to the issue of impairment, principally Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] and the case of Grant. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to consider a number of factors when determining current impairment, including the Registrant’s previously unblemished record, and address the extent to which the conduct:

a. was remediable;

b. caused harm;

c. brought the profession into disrepute;

d. was dishonest

submitting that the first three questions could be answered in the affirmative.

47. The conduct leading to the conviction had not involved a patient, but rather a colleague, which put patients at risk of harm in the Presenting Officer’s submission. Further, the attitudinal nature of the conduct was pervasive, and it is deeply concerning that the Registrant was senior in the department, while Colleague A was junior. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to review the factual matrix set out in the sentencing remarks. He submitted that the Registrant showed a lack of insight and remediation and instead blamed Colleague A. The Registrant’s submissions to the ICP asserted that his relationship with Colleague A was consensual and that she was lying. He further insinuated that his colleagues and friends knew this, and that Colleague A was not fit to practise. This showed a refusal by the Registrant to show culpability or remorse. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant clearly breached a fundamental tenet of the profession in his attitude towards his sexual misconduct.

48. The Panel received, accepted and applied the legal advice provided, and had regard to the information provided to it, the sentencing comments of HHJ Inman (noting that those comments were not binding on the Panel) and the comments of the Registrant in his submission to the ICP dated 18 July 2024. It reminded itself that the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense in relation to the need to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise, and that this cannot be achieved without taking account of the way a person has acted or failed to act in the past. It also recognised that the purpose of the regulatory proceedings is not to punish the Registrant. It also had regard to the practice notes published by the HCPTS entitled “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations”.

49. The Panel was mindful that a finding of impairment does not automatically follow a finding that the facts proved amounted to the statutory ground of conviction – it could properly conclude the offence was an isolated incident and that the chance of repetition in the future is remote. It also noted the guidance in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] that it must be highly relevant when determining impairment that the conduct leading to the allegation is easily remediable, has been remedied and is highly unlikely to be repeated as well as the “critically important public policy issues” identified in that case.

50. In the Panel’s view, there was no information before it in respect of the Registrant’s current insight into his conduct. It could only assess current impairment based upon the sentencing remarks and the subsequent letter of the Registrant to the Investigating Committee Panel in July 2024. It had not been provided with transcripts of interviews with the Trust or the Police and had been unable to explore current impairment with the Registrant as a consequence of him voluntarily absenting himself from the regulatory proceedings.

51. The sentencing remarks of HHJ Inman were made following a trial in the Crown Court, during which evidence was received. They particularly highlighted that:

a. Colleague A had “emotional difficulties in relation to consideration of her own self-worth”;

b. Colleague A considered the Registrant to be “a close friend, a shoulder to cry on and someone who she could discuss such matters with and seek assistance”;

c. None of the messages put before the jury on behalf of the Registrant “ever advanced or expressed any interest of a sexual or intimate manner.”;

d. On the night of the incident Colleague A was feeling vulnerable because she was receiving unwelcome attention from another hospital employee;

e. It was the Registrant’s decision to visit Colleague A in an on-call room in the early hours of the morning, and she was uncomfortable with his visit, though she admitted him to the room. She asked him to move away when he was touching her neck and arms;

f. The assault was committed while she was asleep when “She was still in her working clothes for the theatre. You put your hands down and into her underwear and put your finger into her vagina. When she became aware, because it woke her up, what you were doing she immediately sat up protesting and told you to get out, which you did.”;

g. The Registrant sent a message to Colleague A after the incident stating "I'm so sorry. I've broken your trust in the worst possible way. One minute I was asleep, the next that. I'm so upset and sorry. Why haven't you reported me? I have fully expected and deserve to be sacked today for such a terrible thing. I am so sorry.”

h. At trial, the Registrant’s account was that “when you had begun to touch her in or near her intimate areas, she had responded in an encouraging way and, indeed, when you had asked if she way okay she said yes and appeared to be enjoying what you were doing.” which the jury rejected.

52. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Panel found that there was a risk of repetition of the offences. It was immaterial, in the Panel’s view, that the offending did not arise from the Registrant’s practice – there was no remorse expressed by him and no evidence that he appreciated the impact the offences could have on the public, his patients and his colleagues. It was satisfied that he was impaired on the personal component of impairment.

53. In considering the public component of impairment, the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues, particularly the need to maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Whilst the Registrant’s action had not caused harm to a patient, it would have impacted the working relationship between Colleague A and the Registrant, and also the working relationships within the theatre team.

54. The Panel is charged with considering the degree of harm caused by the Registrant and accepted the sentencing judge’s view that the Registrant took advantage of a vulnerable junior colleague, which he initially appeared to accept but by the trial he asserted was consensual.

55. There was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the public needed to be protected from the professional acts of the Registrant, the conduct having occurred on work premises but outside of the theatre. However, the Panel considered that members of the public and members of the profession, knowing all of the facts, would be concerned to learn that an Operating Department Practitioner had been convicted of this offence in respect of his conduct to a junior and vulnerable colleague, sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 5 years and placed on the Sex Offenders register. Further, it considered that his conduct breached Standard 9 the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) set out by the HCPC for all registered professionals, which requires registered professionals to be honest and trustworthy, and also:

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

56. The Panel determined that public and professional trust and confidence in the profession, professional standards, and the regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in these circumstances. It concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component for the reasons set out above.

Decision on Sanction

57. The Presenting Officer addressed the Panel in relation to sanction, reminding the Panel of the sanctions available to it. He invited the Panel to consider Sanctions policy adopted by the HCPC, submitting that the Panel should consider the least restrictive sanction first and work up from there to a proportionate sanction.

58. The Presenting Officer submitted that the lowest sanctions of taking no action or imposing a caution were insufficient to address the serious concerns in this case. He also submitted that conditions of practice are less appropriate in serious cases such as where there is a criminal conviction or sexual misconduct. He directed the Panel’s attention to paragraph 109 of the guidance, which provides that conditions of practice may be appropriate for conduct that is minor, out of character and unlikely to be repeated.

59. In respect of the sanction of suspension, the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that this was appropriate in cases where a case is serious but does not require the registrant to be struck from the register. Suspension is usually imposed where there is a serious breach of the standards, but the registrant demonstrates insight and evidence of remediation. In this instance there was a serious breach of the standards and no evidence of insight or remediation. The Presenting Officer submitted that any sanction less than striking off is not appropriate.

60. The Panel accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was mindful that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public and promote the wider public interest. The public interest includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity.

61. The Panel had regard to the Sanctions Policy adopted by HCPC and took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer. It identified the following aggravating factors in relation to the Registrant’s conduct:

a. the Registrant was in senior position of authority over Colleague A;

b. the assault occurred after Colleague A had told the Registrant to move away from her;

c. Colleague A was asleep when the assault took place;

d. The assault took place on hospital premises while Colleague A was on call and already upset.

62. The Panel was unable to identify any mitigating features in this case but did note the previously unblemished record of the Registrant.

63. Given the serious nature of the offence committed by the Registrant, and his apparent lack of remorse and insight, the Panel did not consider it appropriate to take no action or impose a caution order. The Sanction Policy confirms that while a finding of impairment means that there are concerns about a registrant’s current ability to practise safely and effectively, there may be instances in which taking no action is the appropriate and proportionate outcome, such as when there is no risk to the public, or to public confidence in the profession, in taking no action. Taking no action or imposing a Caution Order in this instance would be inappropriate and insufficient in the circumstances. The Panel was concerned that, in the absence of any insight, remorse or remediation, the conduct could be repeated. It also noted that Caution Orders should be considered where the allegation means that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a suspension of practice order would be disproportionate. This was not such a case.

64. Given that the conviction did not arise through professional conduct or in the workplace, though on work premises, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice order was appropriate or afforded an appropriate level of protection to the public. It observed that the Registrant displayed no insight or remorse for the impact of his conduct upon his colleagues or the profession. It could not formulate any conditions which would remedy the concerns, which were of sexual misconduct, or restore public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

65. The Panel then gave careful consideration to the imposition of a Suspension Order, which would send a signal to the Registrant, the profession and the public re-affirming the standards expected of a registered Operating Department Practitioner. The Panel was cognisant that the Registrant remained in prison and provided no information as to how he would be maintaining his professional skills or remediating the concerns identified. Further, the Panel considered that imposing such a sanction would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences, mindful that the Registrant was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for an indefinite period. A Suspension Order would not mark the seriousness of the offences in the Panel’s view.

66. The Panel concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose in this case is that of removal from the Register. The conduct of the Registrant was fundamentally incompatible with that expected of a registered professional. In the absence of any insight, remediation, remorse or apology from the Registrant, removal from the register was, in the Panel’s view, the only sanction that would adequately protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession and the regulator.

67. The Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory hearing and the Panel had no information from the Registrant as to the impact this may have on him, but it was satisfied that the removal was necessary in the circumstances, and the need to protect the public outweighed the impact upon the Registrant. The Panel therefore decided to strike the Registrant from the Register.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Ross Wheeler from the Register on the date this order comes into effect

Interim Order

Application

68. Upon the Panel determining the appropriate sanction to be removal from the Register, the Presenting Officer confirmed he intended to apply for an Interim Order but before he could do this, as the Registrant was not in attendance, he was required to make a further application to proceed in his absence.

69. The Presenting Officer sought an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months to cover the period before the removal order takes effect, and the appeal period.

70. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor and was invited to consider the guidance on interim orders following a substantive order as contained within the Sanctions Policy. The Panel also took account of the Practice Note in relation to Interim Orders.

Decision

71. The Panel was satisfied the Registrant was aware of the hearing and on notice that an Interim Order could be applied for as this was contained within the notice of hearing dated 30 January 2025. It was satisfied that the reasons provided for proceeding in absence at the start of the hearing remained applicable and was content to consider the application for an interim order in the absence of the Registrant.

72. The findings of the Panel identified a serious offence committed by the Registrant. The aggravating features and the risk posed to the public led the Panel to conclude that a removal order was the only appropriate way of adequately safeguarding the public. The Panel was content that an Interim Order pursuant to Article 31 of the Order is necessary and proportionate given the serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the Registrant’s conduct and the fact that public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis pending expiry of the appeal period.

73. The Panel did not consider that the public would be adequately protected by an Interim Conditions of Practise Order in the circumstances of this case. It was satisfied that the appropriate order was that of suspension.

74. The Panel was conscious that the imposition of an interim order may not have an immediate and detrimental impact upon the Registrant given his imprisonment but considered the order to be appropriate in the circumstances.

75. The Panel considered that this order should be imposed for a period of 18 months, noting it will fall away in the event that no appeal is lodged to the substantive order of removal.

76. 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.

77. 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 Ross Wheeler