Aron Moorhouse

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with proof that the Notice of Hearing, together with all relevant documentation, had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 30 September 2025. The Panel was satisfied that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in absence

2. Ms Aslam submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and that it was in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

3. The Panel was provided with copies of emails sent by the Registrant to the HCPTS and Capsticks, solicitors representing the HCPC, for onwards transmission to the Panel, dated 3 July 2025 and 23 October 2025.

4. In his email of 3 July 2025 the Registrant stated:

“ I must confirm that I will not be attending the hearing, nor can I to participate in any format — virtual, hybrid, or in-person. I have permanently withdrawn from regulated healthcare work and have no intention of returning to practice. There is therefore no positive professional relevance or outcome attached to this process for me.

I am writing not just to confirm non-attendance, but to ask the Panel to fully consider the severe personal cost this ongoing situation imposes on someone who has been fully exonerated.”

5. In his email of 23 October 2025, the Registrant stated:

“With respect to the current bundle, I can confirm that I am content for my Bundle of Registrant’s Observations to be circulated to the Panel in full. I will not be submitting anything further and will not be attending the hearing for the reasons already made clear. This is not a lack of cooperation, but a matter of self-preservation given the ongoing toll the process has caused”.

6. The Panel was informed that the Registrant did not attend a Preliminary Hearing held on 17 October 2025. Prior to that hearing he had sent an email to Capsticks Solicitors, dated 8 October 2025, stating:

“I respectfully confirm that I will not be attending the hearing. This should not be interpreted negatively or as a lack of cooperation. I have engaged fully and respectfully with every stage of this process…”

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which included reference to guidance given in the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.

8. On the basis of the three emails submitted by the Registrant, set out above, together with the Registrant’s absence from both this hearing and the Preliminary Hearing, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had made a deliberate decision not to attend this hearing. The Registrant had not requested an adjournment and there was no reason to suppose that he would attend if the hearing were to be adjourned to a later date. The HCPC had arranged for four witnesses to attend, including two vulnerable witnesses, who would be inconvenienced if the hearing did not go ahead. The events relating to this Allegation are alleged to have taken place nearly 7 years ago and it is in the public interest for the matter to be concluded.

9. The Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Application to sit in private

10. Ms Aslam applied for any part of the hearing that related to the health or personal life of the Registrant, SUA or SUB to be heard in private. In relation to SUA and SUB she submitted that although the witnesses had been anonymised there was the possibility of jigsaw identification given that members of the public had attended the criminal trial.

11. The Legal Assessor advised on Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (“the Rules”), which states that:
“the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.

12. The Panel decided that any matters relating to the Registrant’s health or private life should be heard in private. The Panel therefore allowed the application in relation to the Registrant.

13. However, the Panel decided that matters relating to the health or private life of both SUA and SUB should remain in public. SUA and SUB had been provided with anonymity. Any members of the public attending the criminal trial would have been unable to see SUA and SUB as both witnesses gave evidence behind a screen. The Panel considered the possibility of jigsaw identification in light of the complex and individual medical circumstances relating to SUA and SUB which may be recognised by other Physiotherapists who had worked at the practice they attended. However the Panel concluded that the likelihood of this was minimal, particularly in light of the large time delay between the date of the Allegation and the date of the hearing. The Panel concluded that the remote possibility of jigsaw identification was outweighed by the need to retain open justice and transparency, particularly as both service users have medical issues which the Registrant suggested may be of relevance when considering their reliability. The Panel therefore refused the application in relation to SUA and SUB.

Background

14. At the relevant time the Registrant was employed by Virgin Care Ltd (“Virgin Care”) as a Physiotherapist at Farnham Community Hospital (“the Hospital”).

15. On 18 April 2019, the HCPC received a referral from Virgin Care in relation to the Registrant. The referral outlined that Virgin Care had received and were investigating complaints from two female patients, Service User A (“SUA”) and Service User B (“SUB”), relating to the Registrant. The complaints centered on inappropriate physical contact alleged to have taken place during physiotherapy appointments with him.

16. An internal investigation took place, followed by a referral to Surrey Police, a criminal investigation and a Crown Court trial, culminating in the Registrant’s acquittal on 31 October 2023.

Witnesses

17. The HCPC relied on the evidence provided by the following witnesses:
• SUA
• SUB
• AH, Senior Manager employed by Virgin Care
• TE, Physiotherapy expert witness.

18. The HCPC produced a bundle of documentation including:

• WhatsApp messages sent by SUA to a friendship group
• WhatsApp messages sent by SUB to her mother
• Opinion provided by a senior Physiotherapist clinician employed by Virgin Care regarding the Registrant’s treatment of SUA and SUB
• Screenshots from Google Maps showing the period of time when SUA’s car was stationary at the Hospital on certain days
• Notes of complaint to Virgin Care made by SUB’s mother, dated 22 March 2019
• Notes of complaint to Virgin Care made by SUA, dated 5 April 2019
• Internal investigation report
• SUA’s medical records
• SUB’s medical records
• Police interview records for SUA, SUB and the Registrant
• Expert report from CD, Chartered Physiotherapist, called to give evidence by the Crown at the criminal trial
• Transcripts of the criminal trial
• HCPC witness statements for SUA, SUB, AH and TE
• Expert report from TE, the HCPC Physiotherapist expert witness.

19. The Panel was provided with a bundle of documentation on behalf of the Registrant, which included:
• An email from the Registrant to the HCPC, dated 24 February 2025
• An email from the Registrant to Capsticks, solicitors representing the HCPC, dated 20 March 2025
• A copy of a letter sent by the Registrant to the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”), dated April 2024
• The Registrant’s proof of evidence compiled for the purpose of his criminal trial and submitted to the DBS
• The Registrant’s Defence Statement compiled for the criminal trial
• Three testimonials.

The Registrant’s documentation

20. On 24 February 2025 the Registrant sent the HCPC an email:
“I want to make it unequivocally clear that I have never engaged in any form of professional misconduct. Specifically, I categorically deny ever asking a patient to remove their bra—this simply did not happen. Throughout my career, I have upheld the highest ethical and professional standards, treating all patients with dignity and respect”.

21. On 20 March 2025 the Registrant sent an email to Capsticks Solicitors:
“Please note that, in addition to being found not guilty in Crown Court, it has already been determined on the balance of probabilities that there is no case to answer. This was confirmed by the DBS following the conclusion of the trial. Like the HCPC, the DBS was contacted by the officer in the case after my acquittal.
Please refer to the email from DC Clare Phillips to the HCPC and ensure that those conducting any assessments or investigations fully understand this information. I feel deeply aggrieved that the officer attempted to influence this ongoing process with that communication, and I intend to explore how it may have impacted the current proceedings.
Regarding further submissions, I understand that the HCPC has obtained the court transcript. If so, it should be clear that there is no case to answer. Key points from the trial include:
a) The Crown’s expert witness agreed with my treatments. We did not call a counter-witness or provide our own expert Physiotherapist because there was no need.
b) The complaints were not directly reported but were influenced by multiple opinions and external pressures. The complainants repeatedly stated that they did not wish to report the matter but were actively encouraged to do so.
c) One complainant’s mother testified that they did not want the case to proceed, stating that it was driven by the police.
d) I was not provided with the full medical history of either patient until 2.5 years after my suspension, while preparing for trial. Only then did it become clear that one complainant has cognitive impairments and severe memory issues, while the other has Borderline Personality Disorder.
e) The police initially claimed that the two patients were not known to each other, but the extent of their inquiry is unclear. Given that they failed to interview the four to five staff members present at the time of the allegations, collect CCTV footage, or obtain appointment attendance records, I have serious doubts about the thoroughness of their investigation. In fact, both patients attended the clinic on the same day.
f) The officer in the case claimed that I had been provided with wellbeing and support information following my police interview. However, my solicitor has confirmed that this did not happen. I believe the officer lied on the stand”.
22. In April 2024 the Registrant sent a letter to the DBS:
• “During cross examination, the officer was asked about why they didn't explore all reasonable lines of inquiry, as well as why they did not interview key personnel such as colleagues in the room at the time and other people that were named in the prosecution cases against me. Furthermore, electronic records were not kept or gathered and CCTV footage was not gathered, forming the basis for my complaint with the IOPC.
• The prosecution's own expert physiotherapy witness held that my physiotherapy during the treatment of BOTH patients was correct and appropriate practice.
• Issues with the reporting process: it was shown during the trial that neither complainant went directly to the police.
• The nature of the complaints changed after each interaction with various individuals: this escalated from not understanding treatment, to feeling treatment was inappropriate, to full-blown allegations of sexual assault.
• Information was funneled throughout a series of individuals. The mother of the patient that you referred to in your document that you sent to me explicitly said during testimony that they did not want it to come to trial, and that decision was taken by the police.
• The other patient stated throughout the reporting process that they did not think that there was an issue and slowly that turned into something else. This was clearly displayed during cross examination of complainants and ultimately contributed to the correct decision of not guilty by the court.
• During my original interview with the police officer, I was provided with no information, no notes, no documentation.
• The officer in the case did not act dutifully or credibly in her pursuits and admitted under oath not pursuing all reasonable lines of enquiry in the investigation.
• As you say in your letter, I did first think that these individuals knew each other. I'm not entirely certain that that still is not the case, in consideration of treating them on the same date for which there is no longer CCTV or client record evidence.
• Moreover, during the trial, it was shown that the first patient has unstable personality disorder and a serious history of mental health problems, of which I was certainly not aware of at the time of treatment. The other patient had been reported to the main neuropsychology department at an esteemed London hospital as they had serious cognitive and memory issues, and were struggling with retention and processing of information. I was surprised to see this as none of this information was presented to me when I treated them originally and nothing about them suggested that they had such issues”.

23. The Registrant provided a proof of evidence to his legal representatives for use in the criminal trial:

“REGARDING SUA
I never asked SUA to remove her bra; I always left the cubicle whilst she undressed, and I always gave her a towel to cover herself. All contact with SUA was professional and appropriate for the locating of muscle trigger points and getting a good stretch and all was consensual touching, and nothing was of a sexual nature whatsoever
I deny that I made contact with SUA’s nipples. I was not aware of this and if this happened, which I deny, this was inadvertently during the treatment and was not a sexual touching.
SUA never gave any sign she felt uncomfortable and always returned for her next session. At no stage did SUA look like she was “frozen in fear” and this is something I believe I would have noticed whilst treating a patient.
I never placed my hands over her breasts, covering the nipple and moving them in a circular motion and pulling and pushing her breasts together. There is a technique for a circular motion around the clavicle but this is not on the breast.
I totally deny any sexual touching of SUA . Everything was professional and any touching was consensual and part of the treatment I administered.
Throughout my treating both complainants, and as with all and every patients, you are constantly asking them “is this ok”, “are you comfortable”, “does this hurt” so you are ensuring consent, dignity and tolerance of the treatment. Throughout the treatment of both complainants they responded yes appropriately and no to the “does this hurt” question. So nothing they said or did made me believe they were unhappy with the treatment I was administering…….
At the time of treating I was never made aware of her problems with (a) the previous snowboarding accident and (b) her difficulty with her cognitive memory and processing, which was evaluated at St. George’s hospital. These are important things which I should have been notified of at the first session
REGARDING SUB
The second complainant, was referred for physiotherapy treatment on 18th December 2018 by her GP... The referral form stated that the reason for the referral was inflammatory arthritis affecting her knees which was causing restlessness. The issue had been ongoing for 6 months. SUB gave on her registration form dated 7th February 2019, arthritis and on speaking to her during the first session, she told me she had two complaints, which were her right foot and her upper back neck. I see that SUB gives a different reason for referral in her Police
Video interview – she states that she was referred for her foot issues, whereas her Doctor referred her for the issue with her knees….
I treated SUB in accordance with the treatment notes and in accordance with the matters she raised. These are all detailed in the treatment notes including reference to the back pain she suffered which I recorded contemporaneously on the body chart, which documents are included in the Prosecution case papers.
On SUB’s third visit, she was walking normally but was still complaining of the neck and back pain that had been referred to in the previous sessions. I spoke to SUB about doing an assessment and treatment of her neck and shoulders and she agreed. I have fully explained all of this and the medical rationale in my police interview. I never sexually assaulted this lady and I never went up to her nipple line. I am sure that would have said something had she been uncomfortable or at least called in her boyfriend. Throughout this session, as with all sessions, I would have been checking if she was ok, if it hurt or if she felt comfortable and had she said yes to any of this, I would have stopped immediately and readjusted whatever was the problem. But not once, gave any sign there was a problem. SUB is the type of person who would have told me had she had any problem.
I did not instruct this lady to remove her bra for treatment and I left the treatment area while the patient got changed.
I never touched this lady’s breast in a sexual manner. Any contact made with breast tissue was incidental to the muscle release of the Pect Minor muscle.
I have no recollection of wiping oil from SUB’s cleavage. I might wipe above the breasts if I accidentally spilt oil, but if it ran down the cleavage, I probably would not have known, and I would never just wipe down someone’s cleavage. I deny the action described by this complainant. The oil we use is a minute amount just to stop friction on skin, so I have never had the need to wipe a patient down.
I never tickled SUB’s feet. I have explained in the Police interview, why I would have touched her feet. This is a clinical test to assess sensation.
Again I totally deny any sexual assault or touching of this complainant.
The only privacy when treating patients is a curtain around a cubicle. We were not in a private room and had I sexually assaulted either lady they would only need to call out and a colleague in the next cubicle would have been there.
Neither lady makes a complaint straight away and I note that had to ask friends in a WhatsApp chat. I think she starts off as a jokey thing with her friends but others have said bits and following which she has thought about matters and then raised the issue with her nurse. also tells her nurse she does not want to make a complaint about me.
I have not sexually assaulted either woman. I have never asked any female patient to take off their bra or even move their bra strap”.

24. The Registrant was required to provide a Defence Statement to the court for use in the criminal trial which stated:

“SUB
The first session took place on the 7th February 2019 and SUB declared that she was taking a number of medications at the time of this appointment — Pregabalin (an anti-anxiety medication), Mirtazapine (an anti-depressant), Lamotrigine (an epilepsy and bipolar disorder medication), Naproxen (an anti-swelling and painkiller medication) and Codeine Phosphate (an opioid based painkiller).
The Defendant recalls that SUB was suffering with pain to her left neck and rear shoulder, left elbow, knees and feet to which Mr Moorhouse describes in his contemporary notes that he diagnosed SUB with CRPS (Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome) — a diagnosis that is supported by the views of CD at page 19 of her report.
It is noted that the Complainant asserts that she did not mention and back pain — but this is directly contradicted by the body chart completed contemporaneously by the Defendant….
In respect of the neck and upper back pain, Mr Moorhouse's assessment was that SUB would benefit greatly with muscle release, muscle energy techniques and stretching of the neck and pectoral muscles. Such treatment was described as "normal practice" by CD….
Mr Moorhouse has described that by the third session with SUB on the 20th March 2020, SUB was once again walking normally but continued to complain of the neck and back pain that had been referred to in both previous sessions. Mr Moorhouse therefore exercised his discretion as a autonomous practitioner to test and treat the complained of areas — with SUBs consent. This was obtained when Mr Moorhouse offered to do an assessment and treatment of the neck and shoulders to demonstrate to SUB that there was no musculoskeletal cause for the pain she was experiencing.
Mr Moorhouse has a background as a massage therapist and was familiar with the use of massage therapy alongside his physiotherapy techniques.
The Defendant set out most clearly in his police interview that he had a medical rationale and technique behind the manner with which he provided massage therapy to the neck muscles, front of the Complaint's shoulder — as well as providing a pectoral stretch and muscle release.
Mr Moorhouse set out clearly that he began at the start of the Pectoral Minor and worked down to the origin. He states that he did not, at any stage, go onto the nipple line. At page 23 of CD's report — she confirms that such a course of treatment was reasonable for the afflictions the Complainant reported
Mr Moorhouse sets out most clearly in his police interview, and re-asserts now, that he always ensures that any treatment he provides is with the consent of his patients, who he seeks to ensure are comfortable with the treatment he is providing.
Mr Moorhouse sets out his knowledge and understanding of patient consent in his police interview when he states that "With female, always say are you happy, is that okay? Patients have the right to withdraw consent at any point, they are made aware of that".
He then goes onto describe the techniques used on SUB and each of the techniques described by Mr Moorhouse in his police station interview were deemed reasonable by CD at page 25 of her report.
Mr Moorhouse "explicitly" denies that he instructed SUB to remove her bra for treatment but rather provided SUB with towels to cover herself and was clear to the patient that they should only remove the items of clothing that they felt comfortable removing. He would leave the treatment area while his patients, including SUB got changed.
The Defendant denies touching the Complainant's breasts in a sexual manner. It was asserted in Police interview and is asserted now that any contact made with SUB's breast tissue was incidental to his muscle release of the Pect Minor which, as described by CD, is in the proximity of some women's breast tissue.
However, it is strongly asserted that any such contact with SUB's breasts, or any part of her body, was not sexual in nature.
The Defendant does not recall that he wiped oil from the Complainant's cleavage with a towel as described….
The treatment cubicle is enclosed by a curtain and is near numerous other patients and staff. It is the view taken by the Crown expert, CD, at page 11 of her report that "if Mr Moorhouse did tell SUB and SUA to remove their bras, the instruction would have been heard by a colleague in an adjacent cubicle". No witness statement has been provided from an adjacent colleague reporting that the heard Mr Moorhouse give such an instruction which — the Defence say — is consistent with Mr Moorhouse's assertion that he did not instruct either Patient to remove their bras.
At all times, SUB was either accompanied by her mother, boyfriend, or within earshot of her boyfriend who the Defendant states he could hear in the waiting area.
The Complainant did not make a complaint regarding any of her sessions until 48 hours later when her mother made the complaint on the 22nd March 2021.
It is noted that SUB was present at Farnham Hospital on the 7th February 2021 for her first appointment with Mr Moorhouse — which is the same day the second complainant —SUA — attended her 4th Appointment with Mr Moorhouse, which we will expand on below.
SUA
It is accepted that the Defendant provided physiotherapy services to SUA following an urgent referral by her doctor.. for neck and back pain which is confirmed by the body chart from the first appointment.
SUA has a desk job and suffers from MS which the Defendant factored into his assessment for treatment. This assessment included a neurological assessment and palpation assessment.
The Defendant set out in interview that the course of treatment for the symptoms.
SUA presented with is similar to the treatment required for SUB — namely reducing pain and restoring movement through massage and mobility exercises.
The Defendant again denies that he requested that SUA remove her bra and again asserts that he provided her with towels and left the treatment area to afford SUA privacy while she got changed.
The Defendant again denies that any contact that he made with SUA was sexual and all contact was professional and consented to by the patient.
The Defendant again set out that his focus while making contact with SUA was about anatomy and physiology and ensuring that he is locating muscle trigger points and getting a good stretch.
The Defendant does not believe that he made contact with SUA’s nipple and asserts that if any contact was made, that it was entirely inadvertent.
SUA confirms in her ABE that the Defendant consistently checked on her that she was comfortable and thereby obtained consent for the treatment he was providing
Mr Moorhouse sets out clearly in interview where his treatment was focused and why. CD states at page 52 of her report that the clinical rationale for Mr Moorhouse's treating of SUA pectoral muscles is reasonable and that it was appropriate that the same course of treatment was maintained throughout the second and third sessions.
It is again confirmed by the Crown's expert, at page 56 of her report, that "When treating the neck, shoulders and upper back, the use of Pectoralis Minor trigger point massage and Latissimus Dorsi release, as described in the police interview with Mr Moorhouse are reasonable techniques to use."
SUA asserts that her 4th treatment session overran and CD states that the physiotherapy diary recording system should be checked to ascertain the actual length of treatment time. Disclosure of this diary recording system is requested since it is clearly an issue in dispute that is capable of supporting the case for the Defence or undermining the case for the Crown.
The Defendant explicitly denies that on the 7th February treatment session with SUA that she was not provided with a towel and was left fully exposed. He asserts that a towel was certainly provided.
The Defendant explicitly denies that he made contact with SUA’s breasts by placing his hand over her breasts, covering the nipple, moved them in a circular motion and pulled and pushed SUA’s breasts together as alleged. He asserts that any and all contact made with SUA was not sexual in nature and was undertaken professionally and with her consent. He specifically denied in interview acting in the manner described by SUA.
Mr Moorhouse explains how there is a technique for a circular motion around the clavicle and this is confirmed by CD at page 59 of her report.
Mr Moorhouse had a medical rationale for all contact made with SUA — including the occasion whereby he touched the lips of SUA which is an accepted aspect of the neurological assessment that was undertaken as a result of the Defendant's mindfulness of the Complainant's MS — particularly in light of SUA’s presentation of headaches alongside her neck and back pain.
The Defendant is deeply distressed at the allegation that his patient was "frozen with fear" as asserted but does not believe that SUA was acting in the manner she describes. He disputes that the lights would have been turned low or that the department would have been deserted. The appointment diary will be able to confirm this.
The treatment cubicle was, again, concealed by a curtain within the physiotherapy area and was within earshot of other colleagues — none of whom report hearing any issues on the days in question.
It is noted that SUA reports feeling uncomfortable at the treatment Mr Moorhouse provided and yet she returned for 4 sessions with Mr Moorhouse. The Defence state that this is inconsistent with the nature of her allegations”.

25. The Registrant submitted three testimonials which are summarised as follows:

• PM: “I have over 30 years of experience as a Physiotherapist in the USA and the UK and in that time, I have worked with and mentored many colleagues. I am pleased to write a character reference for Mr. Aron Oscar Moorhouse. I worked with Aron from July 2017 to April 2018 at St Richards Hospital Outpatient Physiotherapy department”.

• PE: “Relationship to AM: Peer/Work Colleague whilst employed by Virgin Care at Farnham Hospital and Centre for Health.
In the department we would often overhear colleagues with patients due to the nature of the open room. Every patient which I took over from him, expressed concern that he was no longer at work”.
• JJ: “I am writing to whole heartedly endorse the character of Mr Aron Moorhouse.
I have known him for several years, having studied our bachelor’s degree together at the University of Southampton. I can vouch for his good nature, work ethic and drive.
I hope that this reference is suitable. I consider myself to be a sound judge of character and work in a position of responsibility as MSK Senior Physiotherapist for Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust”.

Decision on Facts

26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor advised on the burden and standard of proof; how the Panel should go about assessing the credibility of witnesses, the expert evidence and the evidence provided in the criminal trial; the meaning of the words “sexual” and “sexual motivation”; the circumstances in which the Panel could take account of the evidence provided by one complainant when considering the evidence provided by the other; and the relevance of the Registrant’s good character.

27. The Panel took account of the Registrant’s good character and weighed this to his advantage.

General assertions made by the Registrant

28. The Panel began its deliberation by considering a number of general points raised by the Registrant.

29. The first general point the Panel considered was whether there was any merit in the assertion made by the Registrant that SUA’s and SUB’s medical conditions may have affected their mental faculties and their reliability as witnesses. The Panel considered the following points:

In relation to SUA

• In a letter dated 26 October 2018 to SUA’ s consultant neurologist, from her neuropsychologist it was said that an appointment for a baseline cognitive assessment had taken place in which SUA reported cognitive difficulties within the previous year. She had reported difficulties in attention, working memory, memory and processing speed. It was said that she also noted forgetting her daily responsibilities, indicating issues with long term memory.
• In a note relating to a clinic appointment with the Department of Neurology, dated 22 January 2019, it was recorded that SUA “has just started her Ocrelizumab and will follow our usual protocol”.
• In evidence, when questioned by the Panel, SUA said that she commenced treatment with Ocrelizumab in January 2019
• In a letter from a MS specialist nurse employed by Virgin Care to SUA’s GP, dated 4 April 2019, it was said that SUA had been seen on 3 April 2019 and was now “on a disease modifying drug Ocrelizumab for MS – she says she started a new job which has enabled her to manage her fatigues which has also helped her manage her brain fog that she reports”.

• On 9 July 2019 SUA was reviewed by the St Georges Hospital consultant neurologist who stated that SUA still noticed cognitive symptoms but thought cognition had improved since starting medication (Ocrelizumab). It was the neurologist’s opinion that SUA was clinically stable on Ocrelizumab.
• When giving evidence before the Panel, SUA gave clear evidence and did not appear to suffer from any unusual difficulties in recall.
• SUA explained in evidence that brain fog had not been a product of the treatment she had been given, but rather of her medical condition, namely MS, and that the medication had improved her cognition.
• Importantly, TE stated in evidence he had been provided with both the physiotherapy records and the GP records relating to SUA and these did not alter the opinion he provided in his report and to the Panel. He explained that he has seen her medical records and “saw no evidence in the assessment notes regarding problems with cognition”.
In relation to SUB
• The Registrant suggested that SUB had a personality disorder and a serious history of mental health problems
• However TE confirmed that he had had full oversight of her medical history and had no concerns regarding her mental health or anything to suggest that her conditions might undermine her ability to provide reliable evidence.
30. Having considered this material, the Panel concluded that there was no merit in the suggestion made by the Registrant that SUA and SUB should be regarded as unreliable witnesses by reason of their medical conditions. The Panel placed particular emphasis on the evidence of the expert witness, TE, in reaching that conclusion.

31. The second general point the Panel considered was the concern expressed by the Registrant that there may have been cross contamination between the two service users. The Panel concluded that this was a concern without merit. The Panel took account of the evidence provided by DC Phillips that the two complaints were referred independently, and that whilst both complainants knew there was an investigation taking place in relation to another service user, neither knew the details of the other. DC Phillips also confirmed that the service users had not come into contact with one another. She said the police had conducted background intelligence checks to find out whether there were any potential connections and had concluded that there were not.

32. The third general point the Panel considered was the assertion made by the Registrant that the expert witness called by the Prosecution in the Crown Court proceedings had provided evidence that exonerated him. The Panel examined the expert report provided by CD, together with the transcript of the evidence she gave at the Crown Court, and in particular her concluding remarks which were as follows:

• If Mr Moorhouse told SUA and SUB to remove their bra for treatment, this was unprofessional, not appropriate and would be below the standard of care expected from a Chartered Physiotherapist. A reasonable and competent body of Physiotherapists would not ask a patient to remove the bra if treating the neck and upper back.
• If SUA and SUB had removed their bra for treatment without being told by Mr Moorhouse to do so, Mr. Moorhouse had a duty of care to tell them to put their underwear back on, ensuring their dignity was maintained at all times.
• If Mr. Moorhouse massaged over SUB’s breasts and nipples and touched SUA’s breasts and nipples, this was unprofessional, not appropriate, and is below the standard of care expected from a Chartered Physiotherapist.

33. Having considered the entirety of CD’s evidence, the Panel concluded that her evidence did nothing to assist the Registrant’s cause in these regulatory proceedings.

SUA

34. SUA attended for physiotherapy sessions with the Registrant at the Hospital on four occasions: 14 January 2019, 21 January 2019, 23 January 2019 and 7 February 2019. She had been referred due to experiencing headaches and pain in the back of her neck. She had a diagnosis of MS.

Particular 1 – Proved in relation to telling SUA to remove her bra
1. On 14 January 2019, you acted inappropriately towards Service User A and/or failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Service User A, in that you told Service User A to remove her bra and/or failed to correct her when she removed her bra;
35. SUA said that at her first appointment with the Registrant, on 14 January 2019, the Registrant told her to get undressed and place herself on the bed, and offered her towels to cover herself with. She said the Registrant told her that he would leave her to get ready, without explaining which items of clothing to remove, and so she asked him whether removing her clothing included removing her bra, to which he replied “yes”.

36. SUA said she remembered this situation really well as other healthcare professionals she had seen previously who needed her to remove some clothing had told her to remove whatever she was comfortable with, and had never asked her to remove her bra. She described the answer “yes” as “memorable, highly unusual and quite jarring”. She said that she only complied because she trusted medical professionals.

37. She said the Registrant left the cubicle whilst she undressed, and she put her clothes on the chair in the cubicle before he re-entered, by which time she was lying on the treatment bed face down.

38. The expert witness, TE, said that in his opinion if the Registrant told SUA to remove her bra, this fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist.

39. The Panel tested the reliability of SUA’s evidence by examining the evidence she had provided over time

• The note of a telephone conversation between Virgin Care and SUA on 5 April 2019: “Initial appointment went well, was a good appointment, AM was respectful and always checking if what he was doing was okay. Very professional. Was asked to undress top half, patient clarified whether that included bra and was told yes. Was naked on top half through appointment with a towel.”

• SUA’s police video interview on 25 April 2019:
“so he said okay if you want to get ready… And I think he said sort of “take your top off” and I went “okay bra as well?” and he said “yes”.”

• SUA’s evidence at the Crown Court on 20 October 2023:
“Q We would suggest Mr. Moorhouse never said “yes remove your bra”.
A That’s incorrect. He did say “yes” and that was remarkable because everybody always says “if you’re comfortable”.

• SUA’s HCPC witness statement dated 17 September 2025:
“the Registrant had only stated words to the effect of “leave you to get ready” and did not explain which items of clothing to remove, which is why I asked him whether he wanted me to remove my bra as well, and he replied “yes””
• SUA’s oral evidence before the Panel when SUA said that she remembered clearly that she asked whether to remove her bra and was told “yes”

40. When giving evidence before the Panel, SUA was clear and concise; there was no embellishment.

41. The Panel concluded that SUA had been consistent over time and found her to be a very credible witness

42. By reason of the material relating to the criminal trial and the Registrant’s representations sent to the HCPC and Capsticks, the Panel understood the Registrant to be saying that SUA’s version of events was incorrect. By contrast with SUA, the Registrant had not attended to give evidence. Whilst the Panel did not hold this against him, the Panel had been unable to hear the Registrant give evidence or question the Registrant’s version of events. The Panel gave the written representations that he had presented, together with the evidence he provided to the Crown Court, less weight than evidence given on affirmation before the Panel.

43. The Registrant was unable to support his story by means of the clinical records as all the experts in the case agreed that they were illegible.

44. In his police interview conducted on 9 May 2019 the Registrant said “I am confident in saying…. You know it’s just too awkward I just would not say that to someone.” The Panel found it implausible to suggest that an experienced Physiotherapist would find discussion relating to the removal or replacement of clothing to be embarrassing.

45. Further, during the internal investigation the Registrant stated that when working for a previous employer he had dealt with a patient who mistakenly undressed. The Registrant said that he had reported this to his then employer. The Panel would have expected him to amend his practice following that incident.

46. In conclusion, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SUA was providing a truthful and reliable account, and the Registrant was not.

47. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 1 proved in relation to telling SUA to remove her bra.

Particular 2 – Proved in relation to failing to correct SUA when she removed her bra

2. On 21 January 2019, you acted inappropriately towards Service User A and/or failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Service User A, in that you told Service User A to remove her bra and/or failed to correct her when she removed her bra

48. SUA said that at her second appointment with the Registrant, on 21 January 2019, the Registrant left the cubicle without instructing her to remove her clothes or bra, but she presumed that he wanted her to do so, just as she had done in the first appointment. She said she laid face down on the treatment bed, with her top half naked, and placed the towel horizontally on her back. When the Registrant returned, he did not ask her to put her clothes or bra back on. He asked her to turn over and lifted the towel in front of his face while she did so and then put the towel back down resting loosely across her breasts. She said that when she was lying on her back, the Registrant crouched down low at the top of the treatment bed, and she could feel his breath on the top of her head, and was acutely aware that he would be able to see down her cleavage and underneath the towel.

49. TE said that in his opinion if the Registrant allowed SUA to remove her bra in error and did not correct her, this fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist

50. The Panel tested the reliability of SUA’s evidence by examining the evidence she had provided over time

• The note of a telephone conversation between Virgin Care and SUA on 5 April 2019:
“Naked from waist up again. Whilst on front, towel was placed over bum and top of trousers.”

• SUA’s police video interview on 25 April 2019:
“so I was wearing… Nothing from the waist up… And he then was working between my ribs. On the side and underneath…”
• SUA’s evidence at the Crown Court on 20 October 2023 where she said that she removed her bra as “I assumed it would be exactly the same as before”.

• SUA’s HCPC witness statement dated 17 September 2025:
“I presumed that he wanted me to remove my top and bra, as I had on my previous appointment…The Registrant did not ask me to put my clothes or bra back on”

• SUA’s oral evidence before the Panel when SUA was asked whether the Registrant told her to put her bra back on, to which she replied “no”

51. When giving evidence before the Panel, SUA was clear and concise; there was no embellishment.

52. The Panel concluded that SUA had been consistent over time and found her to be a very credible witness

53. By reason of the material relating to the criminal trial and the Registrant’s representations sent to the HCPC and Capsticks, the Panel understood the Registrant to be saying that SUA’s version of events is incorrect. By contrast with SUA, the Registrant had not attended to give evidence. Whilst the Panel did not hold this against him, the Panel had been unable to hear the Registrant give evidence or to question the Registrant’s version of events. The Panel gave the written representations that he had presented, together with the evidence he provided to the Crown Court, less weight than evidence given on affirmation before the Panel.

54. The Registrant was unable to support his story by means of the clinical records as all the experts in the case agreed that they were illegible.

55. In his police interview conducted on 9 May 2019 the Registrant said “I am confident in saying…. You know it’s just too awkward I just would not say that to someone.” The Panel found it implausible to suggest that an experienced Physiotherapist would find discussion relating to the removal or replacement of clothing to be embarrassing.

56. Further, during the internal investigation the Registrant stated that when working for a previous employer he had dealt with a patient who mistakenly undressed. The Registrant said that he had reported this to his then employer. The Panel would have expected him to amend his practice following that incident.

57. In conclusion, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SUA was providing a truthful and reliable account, and the Registrant was not.

58. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2 proved in relation to failing to correct SUA when she removed her bra.

Particulars 3 and 4 – 3(a) Not Proved; 3(b) Proved; 3(c) Proved; 3(d) Proved; 4(a) Proved; 4(b) Proved

3. On 23 January 2019, you acted inappropriately towards Service User A, in that you:
(a) told Service User A to remove her bra;
(b) you allowed Service User A to lie with her breasts exposed
(c) massaged the area around and/or between Service User A’s breasts; and
(d) touched Service User A’s left breast and/or nipple.

4. On 23 January 2019, you failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Service User A, in that you:
(a) in the alternative to allegation 3(a), did not explain clearly to Service User A which items of clothing to remove and/or did not tell Service A to put her bra back on; and
(b) did not obtain informed consent for treatment you provided to Service User A.
59. Particular 3(a) and 4(a): SUA said that at her third appointment, on 23 January 2019, the Registrant made no reference to her clothing and so she removed her top and bra as she had done in her previous appointments. She said that when he re-entered the cubicle, he did not tell her to put her bra back on.

60. Particular 4(b): SUA said that the Registrant then commenced treatment, and that whilst he would at times ask her if what he was doing was “okay”, he would quickly move on after she replied “yes”, and at no time did he explain what he was going to do or the treatment he was going to perform.

61. Particular 3(b): SUA said that she began the appointment on her front, but the Registrant then asked her to turn over and lie on her back. She said the Registrant did not assist with moving the towel, and simply stood back and watched whilst she tried to ensure that the towel was covering her breasts. She said that the Registrant asked if he could lower the towel, to which she replied, “yes” as she trusted that this was a necessary part of treatment, and he lowered the towel so that it now covered her from her hips to mid-thigh, leaving her breasts exposed. She said her breasts were falling to each side.

62. Particular 3(c): SUA said that the Registrant now proceeded to massage all over her torso, across her shoulders, the front and sides of her neck, across her stomach, between her breasts and along her sides, with the most attention paid to running his hands between her breasts and along each side, just narrowly missing the breast tissue that had flopped to the sides. She said that he was standing at the top of the treatment bed when he did so.

63. Particular 3(d): SUA said that when the Registrant was completing one of his circles from the base of her neck to the top of her leggings, on returning his hands up her sides his left hand brushed over her left breast and nipple. She said that he did not say anything at the time.

64. TE said that in his opinion if the Registrant allowed SUA to lie on her back during treatment with both breasts exposed, this fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist. He said that if the Registrant allowed SUA to lie on her back whilst he massaged her chest and torso during and deliberately made contact with SUA’s breast and nipple, this fell far below the standard expected of a competent Physiotherapist. He said that if the Registrant did not explain his proposed treatment or the purpose behind it, nor ask for SUA’s consent for treatment, this would fall far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist.

65. TE explained the meaning of informed consent. He said that in normal circumstances a Physiotherapist would explain their intention to examine the patient, and would ask if that was alright. If the patient agreed that it was alright, most clinicians would say that informed consent had been gained for the examination. However, if asking to remove more clothing, further consent would be required. Further, if the area of the body the Physiotherapist was intending to touch was not related to the reason for the referral, or if the Physiotherapist was intending to touch the patient near the genitals or breast, further consent would be required before proceeding.

66. The Panel tested the reliability of SUA’s evidence by examining the evidence she had provided over time:

• Screenshots of messages placed by SUA on a WhatsApp group:
“I was between-boob muscles/bone and more of pecs that were kinda under boob fat tissue” and
“the nip brush was only once or twice and could have been an arm or elbow, but defo did happen”

• SUA’s police video interview on 25 April 2019:
“… I was wearing nothing from the waist up… and then he was working between my ribs..”

• SUA’s evidence at the Crown Court on 20 October 2023 where it was put to her that there had been no touching, to which she replied that this was not correct and described the massage

• SUA’s HCPC witness statement dated 17 September 2025:
“I removed my top and bra….he did not mention my bra at all during this appointment, he did not tell me to take it off or put it back on”
“I was laying on my back…. leaving my breasts exposed.”
“he was completing one of his circles, from the base of my neck to top of my leggings, he was returning his hands up my sides when his left hand brushed over my left breast and nipple”
“the Registrant then proceeded to massage….. between my breasts and along my sides, all repeatedly, with the most attention paid to running both his hands between my breasts, and along each side just narrowly missing the breast tissue that had flopped to the sides”
“the Registrant did not explain what he was going to do during this appointment, all the treatment he was going to perform”

• SUA’s oral evidence before the Panel where she did not depart from the content of her HCPC witness statement. On the issue of consent, she explained that she had had a great deal of medical intervention in the past and clinicians had always explained what they were going to do before doing it; however on this occasion that had not occurred.

67. When giving evidence before the Panel, SUA was clear and concise; there was no embellishment.

68. The Panel concluded that SUA had been consistent over time and found her to be a very credible witness.

69. By reason of the material relating to the criminal trial and the Registrant’s representations sent to the HCPC and Capsticks, the Panel understood the Registrant to be saying that SUA’s version of events is incorrect. By contrast with SUA, the Registrant had not attended to give evidence. Whilst the Panel did not hold this against him, the Panel had been unable to hear the Registrant give evidence or to question the Registrant’s version of events. The Panel gave the written representations that he had presented, together with the evidence he provided to the Crown Court, less weight than evidence given on affirmation before the Panel.

70. The Registrant was unable to support his story by means of the clinical records as all the experts in the case agreed that they were illegible. On the issue of consent the Registrant admitted in cross-examination at the Crown Court that his record keeping was unclear, but claimed that any reasonable Physiotherapist would be able to understand his notes. However, neither the Physiotherapist expert witness called by the prosecution at the criminal trial, CD, nor the Physiotherapist expert witness called by the HCPC, TE, nor the Senior Physiotherapist from Virgin Care, SG, had been able to read his notes.

71. Further, during the internal investigation the Registrant stated that when working for a previous employer he had dealt with a patient who mistakenly undressed. The Registrant said that he had reported this to his then employer. The Panel would have expected him to amend his practice following that incident.

72. In conclusion, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SUA was providing a truthful and reliable account, and the Registrant was not.

73. In relation to the issue of consent, the Panel accepted the expert evidence of TE. Whilst SUA had consented to being examined, she had not been informed that the Registrant was about to massage and touch her breasts, nor did she give informed consent to this. SUA stated that in the early part of her sessions with the Registrant he would ask “Is that OK?” before applying pressure and manipulating, to which she would reply “Yes”. Whilst this may have amounted to general consent to be examined and treated, it did not amount to informed consent to the touching of SUA’s breasts. During the Crown Court trial, the Registrant maintained that he had obtained implied consent by reason of SUA’s attendance, and informed consent before treatment. The Panel did not accept this, and accepted SUA’s evidence that she had not been asked to give consent to massaging between the breasts and touching the breasts, nor did she give that consent.

74. The Panel found Particular 3(a) not proved as on SUA’s own evidence the Registrant did not ask her to remove her bra on this occasion.

75. For those reasons the Panel found Particular 3(a) not proved but Particulars 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(a) and 4(b) proved.

Particular 5 and 6 - 5(a), 5(b), 6(a), 6(b) – Proved

5. On 7 February 2019, you acted inappropriately towards Service User A, in that you:
(a) allowed Service User A to lie with her breasts exposed; and
(b) massaged Service User A’s breasts.

6. On 7 February 2019, you failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Service User A, in that you:
(a) did not explain clearly to Service User A which items of clothing to remove and/or did not tell Service User A to put her bra back on;
(b) did not obtain informed consent for treatment you provided to Service User A.

76. SUA said that at her fourth appointment, on 7 February 2019, the Registrant first asked her to attend the gym to carry out some exercises. She said that the Registrant then asked her twice whether she wanted an extension to her appointment as his next appointment had been cancelled. He explained that he could massage her legs. She declined.

77. Particular 6(a): SUA said the Registrant then walked her back to the cubicle examination room and told her to get ready. She said that she took off her upper clothing as before, but tucked her bra underneath her clothes in case she had been giving the wrong impression. She said that the Registrant did not tell her to put it on again.

78. Particular 5(a): SUA said that on this occasion she moved the towel over her crotch area after he asked her to turn onto her back, as he had already seen her breasts. She said she tried to look comfortable even though she was exposed and feeling extremely uncomfortable. She said that the Registrant hardly spoke during this appointment. She said that she was lying on her back for most of the appointment.

79. Particular 5(b): SUA said that the Registrant did some light sweeping motions with his hands, on the area of her chest, between the base of her neck and above her breast tissue. He then started to move in circles with both hands, moving from her neck, between her breasts to the top of her leggings with his fingers slightly under the waistband, then round to the top of her hips and back up each side to the base of her neck. He said that he then started to rub his hands over the top of her breasts repeatedly. She said that she could think of no reason why he should be doing this and felt stupid. She said she was completely frozen and could not say anything as she was so scared. She said he used both of his hands to push her breasts together, and let them drop and fall. She said he would also use two hands to cup one breast, then making a repeated stroking motion from the side of her rib cage towards the bottom of her throat so that he was almost lifting or pushing the breast tissue upwards, but he would stop the stroke after his hand brushed over her nipple, and then he would use the other hand to repeat this.

80. SUA said that the Registrant was stood at the top of the bed, and his stomach was pushing into her head, his T-shirt was dangling on the top of her face, and he was breathing heavily.

81. Particular 6(b): SUA said that the massage went on for a long time and the Registrant did not explain to her what he was doing. She said neither of them spoke whilst he was massaging.

82. SUA said that once he had completed the massage, the Registrant moved away and left the cubicle at which point she got dressed quietly and left as quickly as possible. She said that by then the hospital was empty as it had got so late.

83. TE said that if the Registrant did not correct SUA when she took her bra off, and if he allowed SUA to lie on her back during treatment with both breasts exposed, and if he massaged her breasts repeatedly for a prolonged period, these actions individually fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist. He said that if the Registrant did not explain his proposed treatment or the purpose behind it, nor ask for SUA’s consent for treatment, this would fall far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist.

84. The Panel tested the reliability of SUA’s evidence by examining the evidence she had provided over time

• The WhatsApp message sent by SUA on the day of the incident, 7 February 2019:
“I had a decent back massage, then if I was to break down the percentage effort when all I was on my back, it would be 70% boob + nipple… I’m getting a new (lady) Physio”

• The note of a telephone conversation between Virgin Care and SUA on 5 April 2019:
“During this session, the towel was not over her chest at all, she was laying bare chested on her back. Patient reports that AM “spent more time on her boobs than anywhere else”….. Patient went on to report that AM was rubbing her nipples, all over her stomach and down her side in the waist to underarm area. Patient was there one hour 40 minutes in total”.

• SUA’s police video interview on 25 April 2019:
“he left the room when I was getting undressed, same as always, and I started waste up with bare [sic] and lying on my stomach and then he, sort of, asked to come in… the towel stayed, sort of, waste area. So I just turned over and lay on my back completely bare from the waist up.”
“he was sort of, massaging like between my boobs and then over my stomach and then up the side and then it got to the point where he was completely massaging over my boobs. Pushing them together. You know his fingers on my nipples. Hands on my nipples. I could feel the body heat from him and … I can feel him breathing on me. This is 100% not okay”

• A Google map screenshot provided by SUA showing that on 7 February 2019 her car was parked at the Hospital between 16.09 and 18.02.

• SUA’s evidence at the Crown Court on 20 October 2023, which was consistent with her evidence in her HCPC statement

• SUA’s HCPC witness statement dated 17 September 2025:
“I remember I consciously did not put my bra on show on the chair, I tucked it underneath my clothes in a neat pile… He never told me what to change into, or what items of clothing to take off, I just assumed from the previous appointments that I needed to take my bra off again like the first appointment, when he confirmed that I should remove it. He never told me I could keep my bra on, nor did he ask me to put it back on…
The Registrant started to rub his hands over the top of my breasts repeatedly… The Registrant did not say anything. I did not open my eyes. I was completely frozen and could not say anything. I was so scared. The time I was lying on my back being assaulted must have lasted over an hour, given how long I was in the building (one hour and 40 minutes)
The Registrant did not explain to me what he was doing. We did not speak during this massage.”

• SUA’s oral evidence before the Panel when SUA gave evidence that was consistent with her witness statement.

85. When giving evidence before the Panel, SUA was clear measured and concise; there was no embellishment.

86. The Panel concluded that SUA had been consistent over time and found her to be a very credible witness

87. By reason of the material relating to the criminal trial and the Registrant’s representations sent to the HCPC and Capsticks, the Panel understood that Registrant to be saying that SUA’s version of events is incorrect. By contrast with SUA, the Registrant had not attended to give evidence. Whilst the Panel did not hold this against him, the Panel had been unable to hear the Registrant give evidence or to question the Registrant’s version of events. The Panel gave the written representations that he had presented, together with the evidence he provided to the Crown Court, less weight than evidence given on affirmation before the Panel.

88. The Registrant was unable to support his story by means of the clinical records as all the experts in the case agreed that they were illegible.

89. When giving evidence at the Crown Court, the Registrant denied offering SUA a double appointment, starting in the gym and then moving through to the treatment room. This conflicted with the evidence he had given during the internal interview, when he confirmed that he had extra time and was able to offer a whole session in the gym as well as manual therapy in the treatment room.

90. When giving evidence at the Crown Court the Registrant suggested that he massaged SUA appropriately. He referred the pectoralis minor muscle. However the HCPC expert, TE, clarified that any pressure applied when treating the pectoralis minor would have been applied some distance from the breast area described by SUA. The evidence given by the expert witness called by the Prosecution at the Crown Court, CD, did not conflict with this, in that CD was opining on the account provided by the Registrant, which was that he was massaging the pectoralis minor muscle, as opposed to the account provided by SUA, which was that he was massaging her breast tissue.

91. When giving evidence before the Crown Court the Registrant also referenced a form of massage known as effleurage. However the HCPC expert, TE, clarified that this type of procedure is used for drainage purposes, typically from the limbs, and that it would be unusual for this to be conducted on the torso. Further he said that if used on the torso this would involve upwards movement rather than the downwards movement described by SUA. TE said that he could think of no reason why effleurage would be used in SUA’s circumstances.

92. In conclusion, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SUA was providing a truthful and reliable account, and the Registrant was not.

93. For those reasons the Panel found Particulars 5(a), 5(b), 6(a), and 6(b) proved.

SUB

94. SUB had received physiotherapy treatment for her feet, and was referred to the Registrant due to issues with her knees. She had three appointments with him, on 7 February 2019 when she was accompanied by her mother, on 8 February 2019 when she was accompanied by her boyfriend, and on 20 March 2019 when she arrived at the hospital with her boyfriend but then entered the treatment cubicle alone as her boyfriend had been delayed. She has a diagnosis of autism.

Particulars 7 and 8 - 7(a),7(b),8(b) – Proved; 8(a) Not Proved in the alternative.

7. On 20 March 2019, you acted inappropriately towards Service User B, in that you:
(a) told Service User B to remove her bra; and
(b) massaged around and/or between Service User B’s breasts, and/or touched Service User B’s breasts.
8. On 20 March 2019, you failed to provide an adequate standard of care to Service User B, in that you:
(a) in the alternative to allegation 7a, did not explain clearly to Service User B which items of clothing to remove and/or did not tell Service User B to put her bra back on; and
(b) did not obtain informed consent for treatment you provided to Service User B.

95. Particular 7(a): SUB said that the Registrant started by checking her foot, and then went on to say that he would check her knees and hips. He then told her that she needed to take the top half of her clothes off to enable her hips to be examined and treated. He explained that after she had changed he would come back in and put a towel on her. She said she asked the Registrant “so what do you want me to do?” to which he replied “take everything on the top half off” to which she said “what everything” to which he replied “yep everything”. She explained to the Panel that due to her autism, she made a practice of checking instructions.

96. Particular 7(b): SUB said that after taking her top and bra off she laid face down on the treatment bed, and the Registrant came in. She said he touched her lower back and then moved higher on her back, and was using some form of oil during the massage. She said that when he got to her shoulders, he said “I bet your chest is tight as well” and he then asked her to flip over. She said that she then turned herself over, clinging onto the towel to cover herself as she did so. She said that the Registrant then went down her neck, to the tops of her shoulders, and then reached her chest. She said that she spent the majority of the appointment lying face upwards with him massaging her chest, including all around her breasts. She said that he massaged all the way down towards her breasts, away from the chest area and all the way down to her nipples, including making contact with her areolae. She said that he went through the center of her breasts, and that she is self-conscious about the area below her breasts as there is an area of fat that she cannot get rid of there. She said that the Registrant touched that area down to her stomach. She said that the Registrant did not say anything during this time, and she remembered the silence being really uncomfortable.

97. She said that he was standing above her, where her head was, using his hands to massage downwards, and was panting over her.

98. Particular 8(b): SUB said that the Registrant did not explain the purpose of the massage he was giving.

99. SUB said that she believes the only reason the Registrant stopped was because he could hear her boyfriend, who has a loud voice, speaking in the reception area. At that point the Registrant said to SUB “Is that your fella?” to which SUB responded “Yes” whereupon he finished the movement he was doing and told her she could go. She said the Registrant left whilst she changed. She said that once she got home she could see clearly where he had touched her, as the oil was all over her chest and stopped by her stomach.

100. SUB’s evidence was that he went straight to her neck when examining her. TE confirmed that as SUB had been referred for issues relating to her knee, there was no clinical reason to address her neck.

101. TE said that if the Registrant told SUB to remove her bra, or allowed her to remove her bra and did not correct her, or if he deliberately made contact with SUB’s breasts, or if he failed to obtain specific consent for treatment that involved removal of clothing and the touching close to intimate areas, these actions individually fell far below the standard expected of a reasonably competent Physiotherapist.

102. The Panel tested the reliability of SUB’s evidence by examining the evidence she had provided over time

• WhatsApp messages sent by SUB to her mother sent the day after the appointment, on 21 March 2019:
“yeah, mum, I clarified it because he said to take the top half off….Then I double checked and said “what take everything off?” (pointing to my top half while I said this) and he said “yes”….I can tell you how far down my chest the massage oil was afterwards. Plus he went in between my cleavage but I’m not sure how far”

• The note of a telephone conversation between Virgin Care and SUB’s mother on 22 March 2019:
“He asked her to lie on her front and ‘massaged’ her back. He then asked her to turn onto her back and covered her chest with a towel and ‘massaged’ her chest and sternum, not touching the breasts themselves. A drop of oil spilt into her cleavage area and he wiped this off with the towel".

• SUB’s police video interview on 19 June 2019:
“so I just thought, you know, lift up my top and he can do my lower back. He told me to take the top half of my clothes off and because I’d never had a massage before like I, sort of… I like tried to confirm it with him and I was like “what, you mean like everything on my top half?” and he said “yeah, everything”…

So yeah, then I did that and then he went like down my neck and into like my chest area and like it was like all downwards movements like towards my nipples and like… and I remember him going, like, in between my cleavage”.

• SUB’s evidence at the Crown Court on 20 October 2023:
“Q I’m going to suggest that AM never told you to remove your bra?
A I’ve never had a massage before in my life, so when he said that I asked – no, he said, “take everything off and then I’ll come back in and place a towel on you” and then because I’ve never had a massage before I said “what everything on my top half?” “yes, everything on your top half. Just lay down and I’ll come and place a towel on you.” That’s what happened.”
“he was stood behind me and he was doing movements like that, down, hard, and it went all the way to my nipples, and he went all the way straight in between my cleavage down to here, where I’ve got this band around me, and he touched that. So he must’ve gone down pretty far to be able to touch that”.

• SUB’s HCPC witness statement dated 17 September 2025:
“he told me that I needed to take the top half of my clothes off as it was something to do with my hips or lower back and it may help by doing a massage.… I asked the Registrant at he told me that I needed to take the top half of my clothes off as it was something to do with my hips or lower back and it may help by doing a massage.… I asked the Registrant “so what do you want me to do?” to which he replied “take everything on top half up”. The part that will never leave me is, I looked at him and I indicated to the top half of my body, by pointing at my hips and making an action up my body, gesturing to my whole torso, and asked “what everything” he agreed stating “yep everything” and left the cubicle…
I laid face down on the treatment bed…. When the Registrant got to my shoulders, he said words to the effect of “I bet your chest is tight as well”… the Registrant asked me to flip over.… I turned myself over… The Registrant did not give me any explanation as to what he was doing. I presumed that it was all part of the treatment… Of course I did not give him consent to touch me the way he did…
I spent the majority of time lying face upwards, with him massaging my chest… including all around my breasts ”

• SUB’s oral evidence before the Panel when SUB gave evidence that was consistent with her witness statement

103. When giving evidence before the Panel, SUB was very clear. She said that due to her autism she has to get things clear in her mind and it was for that reason that she clarified the need to remove her bra by saying “so you mean my bra as well?” to which the Registrant replied “yes”.

104. The Panel concluded that SUB had been consistent in detail over time and found her to be a very credible witness

105. By reason of the material relating to the criminal trial and the Registrant’s representations sent to the HCPC and Capsticks, the Panel understood the Registrant to be saying that SUB’s version of events is incorrect. By contrast with SUB, the Registrant had not attended to give evidence. Whilst the Panel did not hold this against him, the Panel had been unable to hear the Registrant give evidence or to question the Registrant’s version of events. The Panel gave the written representations that he had presented, together with the evidence he provided to the Crown Court, less weight than evidence given on affirmation before the Panel.

106. The Registrant was unable to support his story by means of the clinical records as all the experts in the case agreed that they were illegible.

107. In conclusion, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SUB was providing a truthful and reliable account, and the Registrant was not.

108. For those reasons the Panel found Particulars 7(a),7(b), and 8(b) proved.
Particular 8(a) was found not proved as it was an alternative to Particular 7(a).

Particular 9 and Particular10 – Proved in relation to Particulars 1,2,3,5 and 7

9. Your conduct in relation to any or all of Particulars 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 was sexual in nature.
10. Your conduct in relation to any or all of Particulars 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 was sexually motivated.

109. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the conduct in Particulars 1,2,3,5 and 7 inclusive were both sexually motivated and sexual.

110. A definition of the term “sexually motivated” was provided by the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505, where it was said that:
“A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship”.

111. The Panel accepted the guidance provided by the case of GMC -v- Haris [2020] EWHC 2518, which suggested that to amount to “sexual” behaviour, the behaviour would need to be “overtly sexual” which was found proved on the facts of that case on the basis of the following factors:
- The touching was of the sexual organs
- There was an absence of a clinical justification
- There was an absence of any other plausible reason for the touching.
- There was an absence of any suggestion of accident and
- There was an absence of any consent.
112. The Panel concluded that
• In asking SUA to remove her bra, in failing to correct her when she removed her bra, in allowing her to lie with her breasts exposed, in massaging the area around and between her breasts, in touching her breast and nipple, and
• in asking SUB to removing her bra and in massaging around and between her breasts and touching her breasts,

the Registrant’s behaviour had been sexual, in that the touching was of a sexual organ, namely the breast, without clinical justification, for no plausible reason, in the absence of any suggestion of accident, and without consent. The Panel was also satisfied that his actions had been done in pursuit of sexual gratification, for the same reasons.

113. Accordingly, the Panel found Particulars 9 and 10 proved in relation to Particulars 1,2,3,5 and 7.

Decision on Grounds

114. Ms Aslam submitted that the matters found proved amounted to a breach of the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists (2013) and fell far below the standards expected of a Physiotherapist. She submitted that they amounted to misconduct.

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

116. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s actions, as found proved, amounted to a breach of the following HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists (2013)):

2. Be able to practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession

2.3 understand the need to respect and uphold the rights, dignity, values, and autonomy of service users, including the role in the diagnostic and therapeutic process and in maintaining health and well-being

2.4 recognise that relationships with service users should be based on mutual respect and trust, and be able to maintain high standards of care even in situations of personal incompatibility

2.6 understand the importance of and be able to obtain informed consent

2.7 be able to exercise a professional duty of care

3. Be able to maintain fitness to practise

3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct

4. be able to practice as an autonomous professional, exercising their own professional judgement

4.2 be able to make reasoned decisions to initiate, continue, modify or cease techniques or procedures, and record the decisions and reasoning appropriately

117. The Panel considered each Particular that had been found proved separately.

118. The Panel concluded that the sexual behaviour found proved in Particulars 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 was clearly serious in nature. It was the judgement of the Panel that in pursuit of his own sexual gratification the Registrant had deliberately targeted vulnerable young women with medical issues. He had breached the trust they held in him. His behaviour was a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a Physiotherapist and amounted to misconduct.

119. The Panel concluded that the behaviour found proved in relation to Particulars 4, 6 and 8, where the Registrant had failed to tell SUA to replace her bra, and failed to obtain informed consent from SUA and SUB for what he was about to do, also formed a serious departure from the standards expected of a Physiotherapist in the context of this case. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that this conduct also amounted to misconduct.

120. In summary, the Panel found that each Particular that had been found proved amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

121. Ms Aslam submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, both on the personal and public components, in light of the seriousness of the matters found proved and the complete lack of remediation demonstrated by the Registrant.

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

123. In considering the issue of current impairment of fitness to practice, the Panel took account of the Registrant’s good character and the three references that had been sent in by the Registrant, referred to earlier in this determination.

124. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had posed a risk of harm through his actions. Both SUA and SUB had described in detail the adverse effect that his actions had on their mental health.

125. The Registrant’s sexual misconduct had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession and had brought the profession into disrepute.

126. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s sexual misconduct was attitudinal in nature and was difficult to remediate. The Registrant continued to deny the Allegation, and whilst the Panel was careful not to hold this against him, understanding that it was his right to contest the Allegation and to appeal it, nevertheless the Panel had been left with no evidence of apology, remorse or insight.

127. The Registrant’s misconduct had not been an isolated incident. To the contrary, it had involved two service users and escalated over a number of appointments, between 14 January 2019 and 20 March 2019.

128. In those circumstances, the Panel concluded that there was a very real risk that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct and would thereby pose a risk of similar harm to members of the public in future if permitted to practise unrestricted.

129. Accordingly, it was the judgement of the Panel that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

130. The Registrant’s sexual misconduct had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession and had brought the profession into disrepute. It was the judgement of the Panel that confidence in the profession, and standards within the profession, would be adversely affected if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances.

131. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component.

Decision on Sanction

132. Ms Aslam submitted that the following aggravating factors were present:

• The sexual behaviour was not isolated; it took place over more than 2 months and related to two service users
• Both service users were vulnerable at the material time, due to their medical issues
• The misconduct resulted in actual harm in that both service users suffered from mental health issues as a result of the misconduct
• The Registrant had abused his position of trust.

133. Ms Aslam submitted that sanction was a matter for the judgement of the Panel but that any sanction should protect the public and address the wider public interest. She submitted that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be suitable in the circumstances due to the nature of the misconduct and the Registrant’s lack of engagement with the proceedings.

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

135. The Panel understood that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive but is to protect the public and address the wider public interest, which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

136. The Panel took account of the ‘HCPC’s Sanctions Policy’. It applied the principle of proportionality, weighing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public and the wider public interest. It considered the least restrictive sanction first.

137. The Panel regarded the following as a mitigating factor:

• the Registrant’s hitherto unblemished career, supported by his testimonials.

138. The Panel regarded the following as aggravating factors:

• The misconduct spanned some 2 ½ months and involved two service users and multiple appointments

• Both service users had been vulnerable at the time in that they both had medical issues; in the case of SUA, MS, and in the case of SUB, autism and mental health issues

• Both service users had incurred actual harm in that the misconduct had had an adverse impact on their mental health.

• The Registrant had abused the trust that each service user held in him

• The Registrant had provided no evidence of remorse, remediation or insight.

139. In view of the nature of the misconduct, namely sexual behaviour in breach of trust, the Panel concluded that to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order would be insufficient to protect the public, and would not maintain standards or uphold confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. In considering the criteria set out in the ‘HCPC’s Sanctions Policy’, the Panel concluded that it could not be said that the misconduct was isolated, limited or minor in nature, that the risk of recurrence was low, that the Registrant had shown good insight, or that he had undertaken appropriate remediation.

140. The Panel gave consideration to a Conditions of Practice Order but concluded that conditions would not be sufficient due to the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel also concluded that conditions would not be workable in light of the behavioural nature of the misconduct, which made it difficult to formulate conditions to protect against repetition. Further, the Registrant’s limited engagement with this hearing led the Panel doubt that he would comply with any conditions the Panel may choose to impose.

141. The Panel considered a Suspension Order but concluded that this would be insufficient to protect the public from the risk of future harm in light of the seriousness of the misconduct and the complete lack of remediation and insight demonstrated by the Registrant. There was no evidence before the Panel to show that the Registrant was likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings. In those circumstances the Panel concluded that it was highly likely that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct if permitted to practice unrestricted.

142. The Panel also concluded that due to the seriousness of the sexual misconduct and the complete lack of remorse and insight demonstrated by the Registrant, a Suspension Order would be insufficient to uphold public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process, in that a member of the public would be shocked to hear that the Registrant would have been permitted to continue in practice when the order came to an end.

143. The Panel took account of the ‘HCPC’s Sanctions Policy’, which suggests that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving a number of specified types of misconduct. The Panel concluded that the misconduct in this case was serious, persistent and deliberate. The types of misconduct specified in the Sanctions Policy include sexual misconduct and abuse of a professional position, including vulnerability, all of which apply in this case.

144. The Sanctions Policy suggests that a Striking Off Order is likely to be applicable where the Registrant lacks insight, repeated the misconduct, and is unwilling to resolve matters. The Panel concluded that all these factors apply to this Registrant.

145. The Sanctions Policy suggests that a Striking Off Order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession, and uphold public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel concluded that this applies to the current case involving, as it does, persistent and deliberate sexual misconduct lasting over two months targeted at two vulnerable service users over multiple appointments.

146. In reaching its conclusion the Panel took account of the adverse reputational consequences that such an order would be likely to have for the Registrant.

147. For those reasons it was the judgment of the Panel that the appropriate and proportionate Order in the circumstances of this case is a Striking Off Order.

 

 

Order

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Aron Moorhouse from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.
Right of Appeal

 

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 Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order

1. Ms Aslam applied for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to protect the public and the wider public interest during the appeal period.

2. For the same reasons as those set out in its substantive decision, the Panel concluded there would be a real risk that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct if permitted to practise unrestricted. Accordingly, an Interim Order is necessary to protect the public pending any potential appeal.

3. For the same reasons as set out in its substantive decision, the Panel also concluded that confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant were to be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice pending any appeal. Accordingly, an order is also needed to protect the public interest.

4. The Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would be insufficient and unworkable for the same reasons as those set out in its determination on sanction.

5. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the appropriate Interim Order in the circumstances is an Interim Suspension Order.

6. The Panel determined that the appropriate length for such an Interim Order is 18 months to cover the appeal period.

7. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months. If no appeal is brought, the Interim Order will expire at the end of the appeal period. If an appeal is brought, the Interim Order will expire at the time of the final determination of the appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Aron Moorhouse

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
03/11/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off