​​Hillary Kagaba​

Preliminary Matters
Application for Adjournment
1. The Registrant had submitted an application for an adjournment on 23 June 2025. He renewed this before the Panel today. The Registrant explained that he had previously been working in a bank role, which was not full time. This had come to an end, but the situation had caused him financial hardship and he had not been able to afford to pay for a representative. The Registrant explained he had previously made enquiries about obtaining a McKenzie friend or getting some-one else to represent him. He said that he had made direct contact with a firm of solicitors but had not had time to meet up with them.

2. The Registrant confirmed that he had no commitments this week and would attend the hearing and represent himself if it was not adjourned.

3. The HCPC opposed the application. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that there was a general need for expedition in regulatory proceedings, there were three witnesses who had attended and were ready to give evidence, the length of adjournment being requested was unknown and there was no certainty that the Registrant would obtain legal representation in the future. It was submitted that the Registrant was made aware of this hearing on 26 March 2025.

4. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice, and was mindful of the HCPTS practice note, ‘Postponements and Adjournments’ dated June 2022. It noted that although the Registrant had provided evidence of his lack of employment, he had not provided any evidence to suggest he had sought legal representation prior to the hearing. The Panel were sympathetic to the Registrant and could see that his circumstances could impact on his concentration and ability to represent himself. However, he was available to attend the hearing from a private space over the time it had been scheduled for. The Panel was mindful of the need for expedition, given that the proceedings related to alleged offences that had not been disclosed as long ago as 2017. It also noted the fact that witnesses were available and ready to give evidence.

5. The Panel had regard to the documents produced by the Registrant and noted that his lack of employment appeared to have been going on for at least six months. It was not reassured that the Registrant’s situation would change in the future to enable him to obtain representation, for example, because he was starting a new full-time job. The Panel had seen no evidence that free representation would be available on a different date. Whilst acknowledging the disadvantage to the Registrant in proceeding unrepresented and with the stress of his housing matters, the Panel took the view that on balance, an adjournment would not alter this position for the Registrant. It therefore concluded that it was in the public interest to proceed with the hearing.

Amendment to Allegation
6. Prior to the ‘facts’ stage concluding, the HCPC representative applied to amend the Allegation. This was because the Allegation was drafted in such a way that the impairment of fitness to practice and misconduct allegation was within the stem as well as set out separately at Particular 8) and Particular 9). It was submitted that this was duplicitous and potentially confusing. The Registrant did not object to this course of action.

7. The Panel heard and accepted the Legal Advice. It understood there was no specific power to amend the charge within the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules Order of Council 2003 (‘the Rules’), but that it could be amended in these circumstances. The Panel found that the amendment was for clarity and did not alter the substance of the Allegation faced by the Registrant. It was fair to all parties to amend it. The Panel therefore agreed to do so.

Preliminary Matters arising at the resumed hearing
8. The HCPC representative made an application for any element of the Registrant’s case that related to his private family life to be heard in private. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice.

9. The Panel was mindful of the principle of open justice. However, it agreed to hear any discrete element of the Registrant’s case that related to his private or family life to be heard in private in accordance with Rule 10(1), in order to protect his privacy.

10. The Registrant had some technical issues at the commencement of the resumed hearing. Time was allowed for these to be resolved, and the Registrant joined the hearing via his mobile telephone for sound and his laptop for image for some of the proceedings.

11. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant was unrepresented and determined to deal with the matter in individual stages, giving the Registrant time to speak to the Legal Assessor and prepare his case at each stage.

Background
12. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer. On 25 August 2021, the Registrant emailed the HCPC Freedom of Information (FOI) inbox. In this email, the Registrant stated that he was involved in an incident where he ended up getting his driving license suspended due to the amount of speeding points he had incurred. As a result of this, the Fitness to Practise team at HCPC conducted further investigations.

13. In March 2022, the Registrant provided additional information to the HCPC in which he stated that his driving record did not contain more information as the incident happened years ago. On 10 May 2022, the Registrant emailed the HCPC stating that he had received no conviction or caution.

14. The HCPC subsequently obtained evidence to suggest that on 10 May 2017, the Registrant had entered guilty pleas to offences at North and East Hertfordshire Magistrates Court. As a result of these guilty pleas, the HCPC alleged that the Registrant was convicted of: a. Using a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while uninsured, contrary to s.143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; and b. Driving a motor vehicle while disqualified, contrary to s.103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

15. Further, the HCPC also obtained evidence to suggest that on 8 January 2018, the Registrant had entered guilty pleas to offences at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court. As a result of these guilty pleas, the HCPC believed that the Registrant had been convicted of a. Failing to co-operate with the provision of a specimen of breath, contrary to s.6(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; b. Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, contrary to s.87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; c. Using a motor vehicle on a road/public place while uninsured, contrary to s.143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; d. Two offences of obstructing/resisting a constable in execution of duty, contrary to s.89(2) of the Police Act 1996.

16. HCPC enquiries established that from February 2017 until February 2022, the Registrant worked via an agency called Medics Pro (Agency A). In April 2018, Agency A asked the Registrant to complete a form regarding any criminal convictions or cautions. In November 2018, the Registrant completed and submitted a form to Agency A, declaring that he had driven without valid insurance and explaining that he drove his brother’s car without knowing he was no longer insured. He added that the outcome was no further action and he had notified his professional body on 5 January 2018.

17. It was also established by the HCPC that in August 2021, the Registrant applied to work via an agency called Your World Recruitment Agency (Agency B). Agency B requested further details from the Registrant, to which he replied: ‘in regards to the three convictions on my DBS, as on 10/05/2017, 06/01/18 and 08/01/18 whilst driving i was stopped and got points on my driving licence and paid fines for no insurance which was a mistake I learnt from and it was due negligence and panic, not making the right car checks before heading off to work. Since then as you can see on my dbs I have not done those mistakes again and hopefully will never happen in the future.’

18. Agency B advised the Registrant to make a declaration to the HCPC, which resulted in his initial email to the FOI box.

Admissions
19. The Registrant admitted that he had been convicted of the offences on 10 May 2017 and 8 January 2018 at East Hertfordshire Magistrates’ Court and Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court respectively, and as set out in Particulars 1 and 2.

20. The Panel accepted legal advice, and had regards to the HCPTS Practice note ‘Accepting Admissions’ dated October 2024. The Panel determined that the Registrant understood Particulars 1 and 2, and found the matters proved on the basis of his admissions.

HCPC Evidence
21. BM is employed by Agency A and confirmed that the contents of her written statements were true. BM explained that she had never met the Registrant, although later acknowledged that she may have chaired a risk assessment meeting to discuss the Registrant’s convictions but had no specific recollection of this. The evidence of BM was therefore based on the documentary evidence which she had access to in her governance role.

22. BM set out the procedures in respect of ensuring risk assessments were conducted correctly. She explained that the procedures changed as Agency A realised there were a number of radiographers who had not declared convictions. BM exhibited the documents that had been sent in to Agency A and completed by various colleagues. During the course of BM’s evidence, it was established that the Registrant had sent in Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) material as well as the forms that had been previously exhibited.

23. A short adjournment took place during which the relevant DBS material was obtained and exhibited by BM. This evidence was admitted at a late stage with the agreement of the Registrant, who had the opportunity to speak with both the representative for the HCPC and the Legal Assessor beforehand.

24. BM confirmed that although driving offences were seen as a low risk assessment, not effecting clinical practice, more serious matters would not be perceived as having the same level of risk. She clarified that the DBS check may not have been fully scanned onto the system by the relevant compliance officer. BM explained that the email chain exhibited between the compliance officer and the Registrant suggested he had sent in the second page of the DBS check when requested to do so.

25. SMC is a clinical advisor at Your World, an agency that provides healthcare professions and qualified staff to the medical establishment on an ad hoc or longer-term locum basis. SMC produced documentary evidence relating to the Registrant’s application to Your World. She was able to confirm that the Registrant had sent a full DBS check to Your World, as a result of which he was advised to tell the HCPC about his convictions.

26. AM is a case team manager at the HCPC. She explained her role. AM gave evidence that although the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics dated 2016 (the Standards) – which were the relevant Standards in force at the time did not state a specific time frame for registrants to report a caution or conviction, in her view a reasonable time frame would be as soon as possible and within 4-6 weeks at the latest. AM produced documents from the HCPC system, including emails from the Registrant. She confirmed that an email from the Registrant to the HCPC on 1 August 2022 contained his full DBS certificate. AM also confirmed that from the HCPC case management system, there was nothing to suggest the Registrant had made contact before this point to disclose his convictions.
The Registrant’s Evidence

27. The Registrant chose to give evidence under affirmation. He said he believed he was misled by someone from Agency A about disclosing his convictions. He explained that all of his convictions were on the green slip (the DBS) that had been sent to Agency A. His understanding was that Agency A had assessed this as ‘low risk.’ It was only when he signed up to Your World that he was told he needed proof that he had reported the convictions to the HCPC.

28. It was explained by the Registrant that he had limited legal knowledge, and to him what counted as a criminal conviction would be something involving drugs or alcohol, or for example theft or robbery. He now understands that he did have convictions. The Registrant’s evidence was that he telephoned both Agency A and the HCPC to tell them about the 2017 driving matters and was informed that he did not need to declare it. He described how he pleaded guilty to the other set of offences (at Particular 2) having been advised to do so by a solicitor at court, and actually wanted to complain about the police conduct towards him, and his reasons for this.

29. The Registrant accepted he had been on the HCPC register since 2016 and had a degree. He said the DBS certificate dated 25 May 2019 showed all his criminal convictions. He said if Agency A or any of the ten hospitals he had worked in had picked up the convictions on the DBS checklist and told him to disclose them to the HCPC, he would have done so immediately. His understanding was that he only needed to disclose serious offences. The Registrant said he had made one telephone call to the HCPC to enquire about the matters and that this related to the first offence. He said the incident happened ‘in two’s’ which is why most likely he would have thought it was the same occurrence and the first phone call was good enough. He denied trying to conceal the convictions, and said that he could have just signed with another agency, rather than sending the DBS to Your World.

30. The Registrant disputed misleading the HCPC and said he had provided his DBS reference number, and everything was on the DBS update. He said that this could be accessed by any organisation signed up to the DBS update with one click. The Registrant said that two pages of DBS had been sent to Agency A, and that he had called both Agency A and the HCPC in relation to the first matter, but did not know that a motoring offence was a conviction.

HCPC Submissions
31. It was submitted that all three of the witnesses called by the HCPC gave honest, clear, credible and reliable accounts. They were open about the limits of their knowledge and honest about anything they did not know.

32. On behalf of the HCPC, it was submitted that the convictions were not disclosed to the HCPC in a timely manner. The Registrant had attended court on both dates and entered guilty pleas. The earliest date he could have declared each conviction was the date it occurred. Instead, it was submitted that the Registrant first contacted the regulator on 25 August 2021 because Your World required proof of this. The email sent on this date was dishonest and did not refer to the true nature of the convictions.

33. In addition to this, it was submitted that the conversation that the Registrant said took place on 5 January 2018 cannot have included the convictions on 8 January 2018, as at that stage, the Registrant had not been convicted. Further, it was submitted that, had the Registrant made that phone call as he said, the HCPC call handler would have referred the matter to the fitness to practise team, as occurred when he emailed about driving matters on 25 August 2021.

34. It was part of the HCPC’s case that the Registrant had not sent the second page of his DBS certificate by email to Agency A, despite BM’s evidence about this and the fact that the HCPC had chosen not to obtain the exhibit referred to within that email. However, it was stated that the form itself was dishonest and so Particular 4 was made out on the basis of that, regardless of the DBS certificate.

35. It was submitted for the HCPC that the Registrant gave a contradictory account as to what Agency A and Your World had said, and that his conduct was a course of pre-meditated dishonest conduct designed to conceal his convictions. It was submitted that the Registrant had only finally disclosed his DBS certificate to the HCPC on 1 August 2022.

36. It was submitted that the Registrant had been present for both court hearings, had the benefit of legal advice, had entered guilty pleas and knew what the convictions were for. He had a post-graduate qualification and there was a reasonable expectation that he would understand his professional responsibilities as to reporting. Further, the Registrant had failed to disclose the convictions by sending his DBS certificate when requested to, and attempted to actively mislead by referring to the up-date service, which only provides an up-date and not the full DBS certificate. There was calculated dishonesty in respect of the concealment.

The Registrant’s Submissions
37. The Registrant submitted that he had first emailed the HCPC on 25 August 2021 and then had been working away from home, so was not able to send through a full copy of his DBS. He explained that he expected that the HCPC could check his DBS online via the up-date service, and thought that this would have resolved the matter.

38. The Registrant submitted that it was 8 years ago that he filled in the form for Agency A. If Agency A had been aware of the convictions, they should have told him to report them. He felt he had been misled by Agency A, as he was led to believe he did not have to declare driving offences. He said that Agency A had a bad reputation amongst professionals and were inconsistent with their compliance. If he had realised this at the time, he would have joined a different agency.

39. It was the Registrant’s submission that he did not know driving offences are serious offences. He said that he told some work colleagues, and some-one called Salma, who said he did not need to declare it. He wrote ‘NFA’ in respect of Particular 5 as the court proceedings had been completed and concluded, so no further action was needed.

40. The Registrant explained that he now knows he should have disclosed all convictions in full. However, he was told by Agency A to complete paperwork while he was on shift and to do this as quickly and briefly as possible. He did not believe he needed to set out everything on the green slip (DBS certificate) on the form. If Agency A had a proper procedure in place regarding declaring convictions, the Registrant said he would not be in this position. He clarified that he had made the phone call on 5 January 2018 and if phone calls were recorded this would be evidence. His view was that the HCPC should have something in place to check on registrants.

41. The Registrant submitted that he mentioned 25 December 2017 in his email as this was the first date he was arrested, and in his mind, this was the key date for all the incidents recorded on the DBS. He had mentioned this date in most of the emails, which showed he had nothing to hide.

Legal Advice
42. The Panel heard advice from the Legal Assessor. This included standard advice as to hearsay evidence, the burden of proof, the approach to decision making and reference to the relevant HCPTS practice notes. The Legal Assessor provided specific legal advice about assessing evidence and witness believability, and summarised material from the cases of Byrne GMC (2022) EWHC 2237 (Admin), R (Dutta) v GMC (2020) EWHC and R v Khan (2021) EWHC 374 (Admin). Legal advice was provided as to how the Panel should approach assessing dishonesty, with reference to the test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (2018) 2 All ER 406. The Legal Assessor also set out principles from the case law, including from the cases of R v Barton and Booth (2020) EWCA Crim 575, Ali V SRA LTD (2021) EWHC 2709 (Admin), Lawrence v GMC [2015] EWHC 86 Admin., Ahmedsowidau v GMC (2021) EWHC 3466 (Admin) and Maxfield –Martin v SRA (2022) EWHC 307 (Admin).

Decision
43. The Panel accepted the legal advice it had received. When assessing the evidence, the Panel found that all the witnesses called by the HCPC were truthful, reliable and credible. None of them had a reason to lie, and BM in particular was prepared to give the Registrant the benefit of the doubt on several matters.

44. The Panel noted that it had contemporaneous documentary evidence to consider from all the HCPC witnesses, as well as their oral testimony. It was mindful that some of the documentary evidence had been completed by others who did not give oral evidence. However, this was all located on the respective business systems of Agency A, Your World and the HCPC. The Registrant had not disputed its admission or veracity, and the Panel accordingly accepted it was admissible and gave it weight as contemporaneous documentary evidence.

45. The Panel understood the Registrant was unrepresented, but took care to give him sufficient time throughout each part of the proceedings. It noted that the Registrant was not able to produce any documentary evidence in support of any of his contentions, despite being given the opportunity to do so overnight. Much of what the Registrant said related to the responsibilities and his perceived failings of others, rather than his own responsibilities as a registered professional. The Panel found the Registrant’s explanations as to his conduct to be implausible.

46. The Panel noted that Particulars 1 and 2 had been proved by way of admission. They also noted that the HCPC had documentary evidence of the convictions, by way of the memorandum of convictions from the two Magistrates’ Courts at which the Registrant pleaded guilty.

47. The Panel then moved on to consider Particular 3. It noted that Standard 9.5 made clear there is a positive duty on Registrant’s to report all convictions and cautions. In his evidence, the Registrant had accepted that he had read the HCPC standards on more than one occasion. The Panel found that the Registrant was aware of the convictions, because he was present in the court when they were determined. His email sent to the HCPC on 25 August 2021 was sent over four years after the first conviction, and made no reference to the details of either conviction.

48. It was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant did not report the convictions as set out on his DBS to a member of HCPC staff on 5 January 2018. This was because the second conviction had not happened at that time, and the Registrant had not referred to this report in his email on 25 August 2021. The Panel found that if the Registrant had spoken to a member of staff at the HCPC on 05 January 2018 (which would not have been timely in respect of the conviction at Particular 1 in any event) then he certainly did not disclose the true nature of that conviction.

49. The Panel accepted the evidence of AM, that although the Standards are silent as to the time scale in terms of what would constitute a ‘timely’ manner that this would usually be considered within 6 weeks at the latest. The Registrant did not disclose his full DBS to the HCPC until 1 August 2022. Even if he had mentioned driving matters in a telephone call on 5 January 2018, this was not timely for the conviction at Particular 1 and would not have covered conviction at Particular 2, which had not happened on that date. The Panel therefore found this particular proved.

50. In respect of Particular 4 – the form was exhibited in evidence and the Registrant did not dispute that he had completed it. The Registrant had clearly not written all his convictions on the form, which is what the form requested of him. The Panel found that the information the Registrant had completed on the form did not reference both convictions including the more serious matters of driving whilst disqualified, failing to cooperate with a provision of a specimen of breath and two offences of obstructing/resisting a constable in execution of duty. The Registrant had minimised the information provided and had failed to be open and share the full details of his conviction as the form required him to do.

51. The Panel recognised that this charge was in relation to the Registrant’s disclosure on the form itself, and not in relation to the DBS check. Therefore, the number of pages of DBS information sent to Agency A played no part in the Panel’s finding. The Panel found this matter proved on the basis that the Registrant had not inserted the offences for which he had been convicted onto the form.

52. With regards to Particular 5, the Panel do not accept that the Registrant told the regulator about his conviction. In his own evidence, the Registrant could not provide the details of the person he spoke to, and the telephone call was not referenced in his later emails to the HCPC. Further, the Panel accept AM’s clear oral evidence as to the procedures in place at the HCPC if a registrant called to say they had received a conviction at court. The Panel found as a fact that had the Registrant called the HCPC to report his conviction accurately, then on the balance of probabilities he would have been asked to complete a self-referral form or a fitness to practise matter would have been opened.

53. The Panel found that the Registrant had not reported this conviction to the HCPC and knew he had not done so. The Registrant did not dispute that he was the person who had competed the paperwork saying that he had done so, and the Panel therefore found this matter proved.

54. When considering Particular 6, the Panel noted that there was no dispute that the Registrant had sent this email himself. The email was exhibited in evidence and its contents were clear. The Panel found this particular proved.

55. The approach the Panel took to Particular 7 was to work through all of its findings in relation to Particulars 3-6 and apply the two limbed test as set out in in Ivey v Genting to each. It first considered the Registrant’s subjective state of mind in respect of each Particular, and then applied the objective standard of ordinary decent people.

56. Particular 3 – the Registrant knew he had been to court and been convicted of two separate sets of offences. The Panel found that he did understand the Standards. Although the Registrant’s defence was that he thought he did not need to disclose these matters as they are not serious, and he had taken advice about this from others who said it was ‘low risk’, this is not what the Standards say. Even when later asked direct questions by the HCPC, the Registrant still failed to disclose the full nature of his convictions. The Panel found that the Registrant had acted in a way to deliberately conceal his convictions. The Panel found that the Registrant did not genuinely believe he did not have to disclose the convictions because they were not serious enough to do so. This is because he had continuously minimised the nature of his offending in writing to both Agency A and the HCPC. The Panel concluded this behaviour was dishonest.

57. Particular 4 - the Panel noted that the question on the form was clear. The Registrant had been to court in person and had his own DBS check which set out the word ‘Conviction’ next to the offences he had pleaded guilty to. The Panel found that he understood he had a conviction and understood the form was asking him to declare this. The Panel found that the Registrant had deliberately completed the form in such a way as to minimise the severity of the matters for which he had attended court, and had not disclosed the actual conviction, which was dishonest.

58. Particular 5 – The Panel found that the Registrant had not been truthful to Agency A when he said he had reported his conviction to the HCPC. The Panel had already found as a fact that the Registrant had not reported this conviction to the HCPC in a timely manner, and did not disclose it until August 2022. He knew he had not done so and did not tell the truth to Agency A. The Panel found this was dishonest.

59. Particular 6 – the Panel’s finding was that the Registrant had sent this email himself, in full knowledge that at that time he had been to court and been convicted of criminal offences. As he was present in court, he was fully aware of this. The Registrant clearly stated in the email that he had ‘no conviction or caution.’ It was the Panel’s finding that he had provided no credible explanation as to the use of these words, which are clear to any reader, when he did in fact have two convictions at that time. The Panel found it was dishonest.

Interim Order Application
60. The HCPC applied for an interim order of suspension under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order. It was submitted that, due to the findings of fact, an interim order of suspension was necessary to protect members of the public and otherwise in the public interest. It was submitted that the risks had increased, as there were findings of fact that the Registrant had acted dishonestly on more than one occasion. It was submitted that a Radiographer was responsible for the health and well-being of patients and should not act dishonestly. Further, the public would be shocked if the Registrant was allowed to practice before the matter was concluded.

61. The Registrant opposed the application. He said that the original convictions happened a long time ago, and he had learnt from this and would not behave in the same way again. The Registrant submitted that he was competent to practice and there had been no concerns about patient safety. He set out the impact that being suspended from practise would have on him personally.

62. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice. It was mindful that its role was now to weigh up risk and consider the necessity of an interim order. The Panel appreciated that its findings were serious and that it had cogent evidence in terms of grounds for an interim order, because the facts were found proved. It accepted that honesty was an integral part of a Registrant’s practise and was necessary to ensure patient safety. It also acknowledged that attitudinal issues were harder to remedy. However, the Panel also noted that the HCPC had received the Registrant’s DBS certificate on 1 August 2022, and that much of the HCPC case related to emails sent directly from the Registrant to the HCPC before this date. This was problematic when the Panel was considering whether the risk had substantially changed due to a finding, given the cogency of the evidence several years ago.

63. The Panel weighed up the risk factors carefully and found that on balance an interim order could not be said to be necessary. The original offences were over seven years ago, and although the dishonesty in terms of concealing them continued until 1 August 2022, that was still several years ago. The Panel determined that there were no clinical concerns and there was no suggestion that the conduct had been repeated or that the Registrant had not complied with sentencing requirements. Although this was a finely balanced decision, the Panel determined that an interim order at this stage, whilst clearly desirable from the point of view of the regulator, could not be said to be necessary.

Resumed Hearing – 3 November 2025 – 5 November 2025

Decision on Grounds
64. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the matters found proved constituted misconduct. The Panel were reminded of the convictions already found proved in accordance with Rule 10(1)(d). It was submitted that this was a pattern of behaviour and not an isolated incident. The Panel was reminded that it had found dishonesty, which should be taken into account when considering misconduct.

65. It was further submitted that the convictions and findings would undermine public confidence and public safety. The HCPC considered significant and serious dishonesty to be at the serious end of the scale, and the high threshold for misconduct were met.

66. The Registrant accepted that what he had done constituted misconduct to a certain extent. He talked about the convictions occurring when he was a newly qualified radiographer, and the pressures he experienced at that time. He explained that he made the mistakes 8 years ago when he was only 21 years old. He now knows he should have reported the incident.

67. The Registrant explained he had learnt self-control over the years and should not have driven a car. He said he literally made a mistake and blames himself, although his clinical practice is perfect. He reminded the Panel that the incident happened outside of work, and accepted something happened that was wrong.

68. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the two separate grounds relied on by the HCPC as set out in the Health Professions Order. The Panel were advised that that misconduct is a matter of judgement, there being no burden or standard of proof. The misconduct must be serious professional misconduct. The Panel were taken through the relevant case law, including the case of Roylance v GMC (no 2) 2001 1 AC, Nandi v GMC (2004) EWHC 2317 (Admin), Beckwith v SRA (2020) EWHC 3231 (Admin), R (Calhaem) v GMC (2006) EWHC 2606 (Admin), Khan v Bar Standards Board (2018) EWHC 2184 (Admin) and R (Remedy UK Ltd) v GMC (2010) EWHC 1245 (Admin)

69. The Panel noted that the convictions were admitted and found proved. It was mindful that a conviction constitutes a separate ground from misconduct, so records that the grounds of conviction are made out in respect of Particulars 1 and 2.

70. The Panel then moved on to consider 3- 7 of the Particulars. It considered these particulars both individually and as a whole.

71. It was the finding of the Panel that Particular 3 alone would constitute misconduct. The Registrant had not informed the HCPC of his convictions in a timely manner, and it had taken several years before he declared them in full. This undermines the integrity of the Register and is serious.

72. The Panel also found that Particular 4 alone was serious. It found that registrants should be honest, open and transparent with prospective employers, including agencies, and the Registrant had not been. The Panel concluded that this was a serious failing meeting the threshold of professional misconduct.

73. Further, the Panel found Particular 5 to be very serious. It amounted to the Registrant misleading the Agency about what he had told his regulator.

74. The Panel found that the Registrant had clearly misrepresented the position to the HCPC as set out at Particular 6. This constitutes dishonesty and falls far below the standard of conduct expected by a registered Radiographer.

75. Finally, in respect of Particular 7, it was the Panel’s view that dishonesty in a practitioner is incredibly serious. The Registrant’s dishonesty in respect of the matter of his convictions meets the threshold for serious professional misconduct.

76. It was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant had breached Standard 9.1 ‘You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession’ and Standard 9.5 ‘You must tell us as soon as possible if :you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence' of the HCPC Code of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016.

77. It was the view of the Panel that the Registrant’s behaviour, taken both individually for each Particular 3-7 and as a whole, fell far below the standard of conduct expected of a registered professional. It involved the Registrant engaging in a pattern of behaviour in which he sought to minimise and withhold information from two agency employers and his professional regulator. The Panel found that the Registrant did this to hide the fact that he had been convicted, and it constitutes serious misconduct.

Decision on Impairment
78. It was the submission on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was still impaired. It was submitted that dishonesty in particular was a difficult allegation to overcome evidentiality, although the HCPC accepted that there had been no subsequent charges or convictions and the offences had occurred some time ago.

79. The HCPC’s view was that the Registrant had demonstrated no evidence of reflection or insight into the seriousness of the allegations. There was no evidence of testimonials, reflection, or insight to suggest the risk of repetition does not remain.

80. The Registrant submitted a three-page written document on his reflections, as well as his training record and documentary evidence from the DVLA. He said that he was fit to practice. The Registrant explained that he had learnt a lot from probation about not repeating the same mistakes and undertaken driving courses. He had also determined to place less reliance on using a car to get to work, cycling to work and using public transport as well as using a lift share with colleagues. He would also consider hospital accommodation as a way to avoid repetition.

81. The Registrant explained that he is of good character and has received good feedback in his work. He said he now understands the reporting procedure and would be willing to help to raise awareness of this amongst his colleagues.

82. It was the Registrant’s submission that he sincerely feels bad about what he did, and he talked again about the pressures he was under when newly qualified. He said he has referees who will help him to obtain work in future, and has been trying to improve himself, for example by keeping up with innovations in radiology by reading the radiology magazine. The Registrant spoke at length about his clinical practice.

83. It was acknowledged by the Registrant that ‘dishonesty is not a good look on a professional.’ He said he had made a mistake and was now familiar with the reporting procedure, so he would not make this mistake in future. The Registrant explained that he last worked prior to the commencement of this hearing and was not currently working. He had been turned down for a job having disclosed his DBS.

84. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS practise note, ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ dated August 2025. The Panel were also referred to relevant case law, including the test set out in CHRE v NMC (and Grant) EWHC 97 (Admin). It was reiterated that a finding of impairment was a matter for the Panel’s own professional judgement, there being no burden or standard of proof.

85. The Panel had regard to the practice note and the legal advice. It was aware that it was considering the Registrant’s fitness to practice now, and that its role was not to punish the Registrant for past misconduct. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant was not represented. It noted that the concerns did not relate to the Registrant’s clinical practice, but rather to his character and conduct.

86. It was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant had focused primarily on the driving matters. It accepted that it was unlikely that he would repeat driving offences and noted that a significant period of time has elapsed since he was convicted of the criminal offences. However, the Panel noted that the dishonesty had continued until 2022.

87. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant did not seem to appreciate the severity of the dishonesty element in its findings. He appeared not to accept this fully, still referred to his behaviour as a mistake, and sought to say that he had been misled by others. The Panel considered that the Registrant had not taken full responsibility for his dishonest behaviour, or recognised the potential harm this could have both in a clinical environment as a fundamental tenet of the profession, and in terms of the impact on the profession and the public’s perception of this.

88. It was the finding of the Panel that there was no evidence before it of testimonials, targeted CPD work (for example around honesty and integrity) and adequate insight by way of reflection.

89. The Panel found that the personal component was engaged in terms of the Registrant’s fitness to practice. He has breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, that of honesty and integrity, and shown little in the way of remediation for this. This meant that there remained a risk of repetition, specifically in terms of the Registrant not disclosing the extent of his criminal convictions to potential employers.

90. The Panel also found that the public component of fitness to practice was engaged. A fully informed member of the public would expect the Regulator to uphold proper standards. Public confidence in the profession would be damaged if no finding of impairment was made in circumstances in which the purpose of the register itself had been undermined and in which adequate remediation had not been undertaken.

Decision on Sanction
91. The representative for the HCPC confirmed that the HCPC was neutral as to sanction. She reminded the Panel that the findings against the Registrant had been made on two statutory grounds. The Panel were directed to the Sanctions policy, and the relevant paragraphs within this. It was submitted that the Registrant had accepted the convictions but done very little by way of demonstrating insight.

92. The Registrant started by apologising to anyone who had been affected by his misconduct, including his work colleagues and employers. He indicated that he took the matter seriously but was not sure of how to show evidence or prove this to the HCPC. He confirmed that he intended to practice in future and was willing to comply with anything imposed by the HCPC.

93. The Registrant set out that he had always worked as a radiographer and acknowledged that he could have brought shame to both his family and colleagues. He would hope to achieve a permanent role in future and has taken a lot of things on board. He expressed further remorse and said he would always engage – he was willing to work on the dishonesty element of things and said that there would be no chance of him doing the same thing again.

94. The Registrant reiterated that he was a changed person and was willing to comply and take accountability for his actions and to redeem himself.

95. The Legal Assessor confirmed that the Panel should have due regard to the HCPC Sanctions policy dated March 2019, and set out the principles in respect of sanctions for both conviction and dishonesty cases found within case law.

96. The Panel was guided by the Sanctions Policy. It was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. It noted that the Registrant had engaged fully and thoroughly with the hearing process, and that as he was unrepresented, this had been difficult for him.

97. The Panel firstly considered the aggravating features. It found that the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, and that his dishonest conduct had been repeated over a period of time. Although this occurred several years ago, it did constitute a pattern of behaviour at that point. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had not yet provided any specific remediation in respect of the honesty and integrity concerns.

98. The Panel then considered mitigating features. It noted that, at the sanctions stage, the Registrant expressed genuine remorse and appeared to now recognise the impact of his misconduct on the HCPC, his colleagues and previous employers. He had expressed a clear willingness to remediate in future and had demonstrated developing insight. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had been experiencing personal stressors at the time of the misconduct.

99. In accordance with the Sanctions Policy, the Panel worked through the Sanctions available to it in ascending order.

100. The Panel considered that mediation is not appropriate or relevant in the circumstances of the case. It also determined that its findings are too serious for the Panel to consider taking no further action.

101. The Panel next considered a caution order. It took into account the Registrant’s submissions at this stage of the proceedings, and that he was beginning to recognise the impact of his misconduct on the reputation of the profession. However, the Panel found that a caution order would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct or be consistent with the findings it had made as to his current impairment of fitness to practice in both the personal and public components.

102. It was the view of the Panel that a conditions of practice order was not workable. It considered that dishonesty is an attitudinal issue and not readily addressed by conditions of practice. There were no workable conditions that would manage the risks identified.

103. The next available sanction is that of suspension. The Panel determined that this was necessary and proportionate to manage the severity of the dishonesty and would serve to address both the public protection and public interest component of its findings. The Panel noted that the Registrant had clearly demonstrated a willingness to remediate going forward and determined that a Suspension Order of 6 months was proportionate in the specific circumstances of this case.

104. The Panel was mindful that the Suspension Order was likely to cause hardship to the Registrant in terms of his employment prospects. However, it considered that this was proportionate to reflect the serious nature of the dishonest conduct found proved, address the risks identified, and give the Registrant time to remediate.

105. In accordance with the Sanctions Policy, the Panel also considered the next Sanction, that of striking off. It noted that a striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate, or reckless acts which can include dishonesty. Although the dishonesty exhibited by the Registrant was the most serious aspect of the Panel’s findings, and all dishonesty can present risks, the Panel was mindful that no clinical harm had been caused. Although the behaviour that led to the convictions posed a risk of harm to the public, no actual harm had been caused. The Registrant has no fitness to practice history, and the Panel noted that the misconduct found proved had ended over 3 years ago. There was no evidence that it had been repeated since this time. The Panel also took account of the Registrant’s developing insight, and the fact that he was willing to engage and put things right. The Panel found that in these circumstances, a striking off order was not necessary either for public protection or in the public interest, and therefore would be disproportionate.

106. It will be a matter for a future reviewing panel to determine what information and evidence it would require to be satisfied the Registrant’s fitness to practice is no longer impaired. This Panel does not seek to bind the hands of either the Registrant or a future panel. However, mindful of the fact that the Registrant is unrepresented, the Panel indicate for his benefit that the following may be helpful to a future panel:
i) An updated reflective piece from the Registrant focusing on the allegations found proved, including the dishonesty.
ii) Targeted remediation around honesty and integrity (for example, targeted online courses focusing on this).
iii) Evidence that the Registrant has been keeping his skills up to date (for example, undertaking e-learning and/or summaries of professional articles read and considered).
iv) The production of any references or testimonials from others about the Registrant in either paid or unpaid work.

That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Hillary Kagaba for a period of 6 months from the date this order comes into effect.

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
Application
1. The representative for the HCPC applied for an Interim Suspension Order. This was requested for 18 months, to cover the time taken for an appeal to be heard should the Registrant appeal.

2. The Registrant did not comment to oppose this application.

3. The Panel accepted advice from the Legal Assessor and was mindful that the Registrant had been put on notice of this application on 4 November 2025 in accordance with the case of Gupta v GMC (2001) EWHC (Admin) 631. The Panel recognised that the Registrant was on notice that an application for an Interim Order may be made in the event of a sanction being imposed.

4. The Panel determined that it was necessary on both the grounds of public protection and public interest for an Interim Suspension Order to be made. The public protection aspect of this case is the importance of the maintenance of the integrity of the register, given that the Registrant’s fitness to practice remains currently impaired and the sanction imposed. If the Registrant were permitted to practice whilst deemed not fit to do so, the public could be put at risk.

5. The Panel considered that an Interim Suspension Order was also necessary in the public interest. The misconduct found is serious and not to make an Interim Suspension Order would be incompatible with the Panel’s findings that the Registrant should be suspended from the Register.

6. The Panel therefore determined that an Interim Suspension Order was necessary to protect the public and that such an order was also in the public interest. It determined that the Suspension Order would be of eighteen months’ duration, in order to allow for the completion of the appeal process if an appeal was made.

Decision
7. 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.

8. 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 ​​Hillary Kagaba​