Mr Ian C Hardman

Preliminary Matters
Service of Notice
1. The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing (hereafter ‘the Notice’) had been sent by electronic mail (‘e-mail’) on 18 September 2025, to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register. The Panel also noted that it had before it an email ‘delivery receipt’ confirming that the Notice had been delivered to the Registrant’s email address, on 18 September 2025, timed at 15:53pm.
2. Additionally, the Panel noted the contents of a number of emails from the Registrant to the HCPC and HCPTS, and in particular to an email dated 20 September 2025, timed at 08:31am, which stated:
‘I have been informed by yourselves that a hearing date has been set for 11th November. It is still the case that I will not be attending and will have no legal representation. This in no way implies any guilt on my part but just expresses my extreme distress and anxiety I have felt throughout this procedure.
I hope the hearing will go ahead and I would like the following statement to be put forward.
The allegations have been brought about by pure speculation from a colleague and assumptions have been made and escalated.
I have had a forty year career as a Radiographer which has been totally unblemished and have never had a single complaint against me. It is not in my nature to do the type of thing I have been accused of and four of my closest colleagues have presented character witness statements endorsing this.
[text redacted]
Should I ever upset any patient or colleague in any way when performing my duties as a Radiographer I would sincerely apologise but in this situation I was never given the chance.
I am now unemployed with my reputation in tatters and at 62 years of age I am unlikely to work as a Radiographer again.
I feel I have been severely punished already regarding this matter and urge the panel to take no further action
Ian Hardman’
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied, in view of the aforementioned, that the Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’).
Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
4. Mr Mullen, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, as permitted by Rule 11
4
of the Rules. In doing so, he drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s email, dated 20 September 2025. Further, Mr Mullen also submitted:
i. the Registrant had decided, of his own volition, not to attend the hearing and he had not sought an adjournment of the hearing;
ii. there is nothing before the Panel to suggest that an adjournment of the proceedings would secure the Registrant’s future attendance at a hearing;
iii. the Registrant has outlined that he is aware of the hearing date and further, has set out a desire for the hearing to proceed in his absence; and
iv. any delays to the hearing would not be in the interest of an expeditious disposal of the case and would result in unnecessary cost to the regulator;
v. the HCPC has two witnesses warned to attend for the hearing and should the matter have to be relisted, any resulting adjournment would not be “short”; and
vi. whilst the Registrant may be at a disadvantage by voluntarily electing not to attend the hearing, the HCPC submit that the interests of the public outweigh any disadvantage caused to the Registrant in this case, should the Panel decide to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.
6. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:
a) the Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Rules and that the Registrant had been afforded with almost two months’ notice of the hearing (18 September 2025 to 11 November 2025);
b) there has been no application to adjourn the hearing and the emails from the Registrant provided no indication he was seeking an adjournment of the hearing, or that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Conversely, the Panel noted that the Registrant had expressed a desire for the hearing to proceed in his
5
absence. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings;
c) the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions to it. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been afforded with an opportunity to attend the hearing and he had chosen not to do so. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had provided written submissions, albeit brief, for its consideration and the Panel would have regard to these matters when determining the case before it. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that any potential disadvantage caused to the Registrant by voluntarily absenting himself from the proceedings, could be mitigated with reference to his written submissions; and
d) as this is a Substantive Hearing there is a strong public interest in ensuring that it is considered expeditiously. Further, the HCPC had two witnesses warned to give evidence to the Panel and consequently, the Panel was also of the view that it was in both parties’ interests that the hearing should proceed.
Amendment to the Allegation
7. Mr Mullen made an application to amend the Allegation. He submitted that there was a typographical error contained within the Allegation referred by the Investigating Committee (‘IC’), in that Particular 3 stated ‘The matters set out in allegations 1-3 above constitute misconduct’, when the Particular should state ‘The matters set out in allegations 1-2 above constitute misconduct’.
8. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it had regard to Mr Mullen’s submissions and to the documentation before it.
9. Having done so, the Panel concluded, after reviewing the proposed amendment to the Allegation, that it would agree to the amendment of the Allegation for the following reasons:
a. the proposed amendment was to correct a typographical error; and
b. the proposed amendment did not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation, nor did it widen the scope of the Allegation. The Panel therefore considered that there was no likelihood of injustice to the Registrant.
6
Background
10. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer.
11. The Registrant was employed by The Highfield Hospital (‘the Hospital’) (part of the Circle Health Group Ltd (‘the CHG’)), in Rochdale, from 01 January 2022 as a ‘Bank’ Senior Radiographer.
12. On 05 January 2024, Simon Harvey, National Lead for Imaging and Diagnostics for the Circle Health Group Ltd, made a referral to the HCPC in relation to the matters set out below.
13. On 20 December 2023, the Registrant was working as a ‘Bank’ Senior Radiographer on board a mobile Computed Tomography (‘CT’) scanner, located at the Hospital. On this date, the Registrant is said to have been working with an imaging assistant with no other diagnostic radiographers working on the mobile CT scanner.
14. As part of the routine imaging housekeeping designed to ensure that CT images had been transferred from the mobile CT scanner to the Picture Archiving and Communication System (‘PACS’), the Hospital obtained evidence of six separate female patient’s abdominal and pelvic CT scans that had been ‘reconstructed’ in 3D. The images were said to be unusually on ‘soft tissue’ settings which resulted in images of the lower torso being produced that incorporated enhanced visualisation of all soft tissue structures, including female genitalia.
15. The six patient’s CT scans which were reconstructed with a 3D image, were done so in rapid succession on 20 December 2023. The first reconstruction was said to have been undertaken at 07:54am and the sixth completed at 08:27am (33 minutes to reconstruct images for 6 separate patients).
16. The reconstructed 3D images from the six patients were not saved on the scanner, nor were they transferred to PACS by the operator of the CT scanner, and there was no evidence that the reconstructions were produced for any obvious diagnostic purpose, as they were generated some time after the original scan and after the scan had been reported on by a Radiologist. Further, it is said that there was no obvious clinical reasoning as to why the six patient’s scans were windowed to optimise soft tissue visualisation. Additionally, Mr Harvey, in his referral to the HCPC, outlined that he could not ascertain a clinically valid reason as to why someone would window the lower torso of six separate patients in this manner and then not use the images for a diagnostic outcome. Mr
7
Harvey further outlined that it was believed that the six images were captured automatically by the system, with the operator being unaware that this was occurring, therefore providing an audit trail of the CT scanners events.
17. Given the unusual circumstances, the CHG determined it appropriate to refer the matter to the HCPC.
Decision on Facts
Summary of Evidence
18. Mr Mullen opened and summarised the HCPC’s case. In doing so, he outlined that the HCPC relied upon the documentation outlined below and he submitted that on the basis of the information before the Panel, in addition to the two witnesses’ oral evidence, the Panel could find the facts proved.
Documentation before the Panel:
i. HCPC hearing bundle consisting of 158 pages;
ii. defence bundle consisting of 5 pages;
iii. service bundle consisting of 9 pages; and
iv. HCPC case summary consisting of 7 pages.
Witness evidence
(The HCPC called two witnesses to give oral evidence to the Panel. The witness accounts below are provided as a summary of the oral and documentary evidence provided to the Panel and are not intended to be a verbatim or detailed account of the evidence provided.)
Charlotte Brownhill (‘CB’):
19. CB gave oral evidence to the Panel. In doing so, she confirmed that the contents of her witness statement was true to the best of her knowledge and belief.
20. In her witness statement and oral evidence to the Panel, CB confirmed that she is Director of Clinical Services at the Hospital and that she was in this same role when the concerns regarding the Registrant’s conduct were raised with her.
8
21. CB stated that as Director of Clinical Services she is responsible for all of the services that sit within the remit of clinical matters, including: nursing; radiology; physiotherapy; and pharmacy.
22. CB also informed the Panel that the Registrant was employed by CHG, from 01 January 2022, as a ‘Bank’ Senior Radiographer at the Hospital. CB outlined that the Registrant worked within the CT and MRI services, of the Hospital, on the Mobile CT scanner.
23. CB stated that the Registrant’s responsibilities and duties, as a Senior Radiographer, included taking CT images of all anatomical areas for patients who came into the scanner. She further outlined that in order to do this, the Registrant would need to prepare the patient, put them in the correct position, reassure the patient through the process, check the correct images and dosages, take the images on the CT scanner and then send them to a Radiologist to interpret.
24. CB also informed the Panel that during the Registrant’s first twelve months of employment with CHG, the Registrant worked alongside another Clinical Lead, Kate Prendergast (‘KP’), also a Senior Radiographer. CB stated that this process of ‘shadowing’ was a regular procedure for a new Radiographer to ensure competency and that the Hospital’s usual business processes were understood. CB also outlined that when the Registrant was first employed, he was unfamiliar with the CT scanner however, after the twelve-month period, he worked autonomously with an imaging assistant.
25. CB also summarised, within the body of her witness statement, the training that the Registrant had completed during his employment with the Hospital and she stated that this included both online and in person training.
26. CB also informed the Panel in her witness statement that, on 03 January 2024, KP came to see her about some abnormal images which had been found on the CT scanner. On the same date (03 January 2024), and after viewing the images herself, CB stated that she contacted Simon Harvey (the National Lead for Radiology for CHG, to discuss whether, in his opinion, there was any clinical justification or need for the images. CB stated that at the same time, information was requested from those who interpret the data from the CT scanner, to determine the times and dates the six images had been ‘auto saved’ onto the CT scanner. CB stated that she received the requested information the following day (04 January 2024).
9
27. CB informed the Panel that images taken by the CT scanner are in black and white and are usually stored and sent for interpretation by another clinician. However, in this case, the six images had been reconstructed in order to add the ‘soft tissue’ (i.e. skin) back on to the patient’s images. CB further explained that in order to do this, the user of the machine must click into the CT image to access it. Then, the image opens into the larger black and white image, and the user can ‘re-render’ the images moving the scale up and down, to show more or less ‘levels’ to the image. CB explained that the top and bottom of the scale are two extremes; in one direction you are shown flesh and in the other you can see down to the veins beyond the bone.
28. In this case, CB stated that the images were of six different female patient’s abdominal and pelvis CT scans and that each had been reconstructed in 3D to show enhanced visualisation of all soft tissue structures including female genitalia. CB explained to the Panel that the images were not purposefully saved and sent for interpretation by a Radiologist, they were instead ‘auto-saved’ on to the CT scanner machine as part of the file system by the CT scanner. CB also stated that she could not understand what clinical relevance the reconstructed images would provide. Further, CB also informed the Panel that after speaking with colleagues, it was established that the images were reconstructed on 20 December 2023. KP then cross-referenced this information with the rota for this day and it was identified that the Registrant was working on the CT scanner as they were able to locate the times and dates the reconstructed images had been ‘auto saved’ to the CT scanner.
29. CB stated that the data information, from the CT scanner, stated that the reconstructed images related to six patient’s CT scans and had been saved in rapid succession between 07:54am and the sixth at 08:27am.
30. CB also informed the Panel that reporting on CT images is not within the Registrant’s role, as this would be undertaken by a Radiologist. Further, CB also outlined that there was no evidence that any reports were produced relating to these six images and that the images were not uploaded onto the PACS system. CB also confirmed to the Panel that a finger print scanner programme was accessed to determine that the Registrant was working on the CT scanner at the time the images were reconstructed.
31. CB also told the Panel that it was decided, after consultation with colleagues at CHG, that there was no clinical rationale or reasonable explanation for the images to be re-rendered (having the tissue added
10
back onto the image) and that this incident was considered so serious that it justified a referral to the HCPC and an internal investigation.
32. During the course of the internal investigation, CB informed the Panel that the Registrant provided a statement to CHG, dated 11 January 2024, and that in his statement the Registrant outlined that he was unfamiliar with the CT scanner at the Hospital and that he was using the scanner for ‘educational purposes’ to enhance his skills as a Radiographer. CB also stated that the Registrant denied that he had recreated the images for his own gratification stating ‘should that be my desire as everybody knows I am only a few clicks away on the internet from obtaining far superior images’.
33. After receiving the Registrant’s statement, CB told the Panel that she met with a colleague on Microsoft Teams, where the Registrant’s statement was reviewed by them both and questions were posed to put to the Registrant. In a further meeting organised by KP, which took place on 07 February 2024, CB informed the Panel that the Registrant confirmed that he had worked alongside KP for the first 12 months of his employment and had since that time been working autonomously on the CT scanner (approximately 7 months). CB also told the Panel that in response to a question about the educational value of reconstituting the images, the Registrant again stated that the images were created for educational purposes and that viewing each image for approximately five and a half minutes, provided sufficient time to review them for the same said educational purpose.
34. CB also informed the Panel that when she questioned the Registrant as to why he was only looking at female patients and the same pelvic anatomy site, the Registrant stated that he would consult the patient’s referral letter and if it stated ‘ovaries’ or ‘uterus’ on the referral letter, he would then look at the scans. However, CB highlighted to the Panel that the CT scanner was mobile and visited various CHG sites. Consequently, the patients whose images had been reconstructed, were not patients of the Hospital where the Registrant worked on the CT scanner and he would therefore not have had access to each of the patient’s referral letters as the referral letters were ‘site’ specific. CB stated that when she put this to the Registrant during his interview, he became agitated and upset. CB further outlined to the Panel, that after a long pause, the Registrant said he just ‘picked one’ looked at it and then moved on and that he was looking to see what normal ovaries looked like and once he had, he moved onto the next image.
11
35. CB also outlined to the Panel in her evidence that, in her view, as a Radiographer with over 40 years’ experience, the images would serve no educational purpose for the Registrant, as the anatomy was not anything he had not seen before. CB further stated that she could not see another reason why these images were modified other than to show a lifelike image of a naked female torso which was not required for clinical purposes and offered no educational benefit to him. Further, CB told the Panel that the six patients had not consented to these images being used in this way and that she felt that the reconstruction of the images breached the patients’ dignity.
36. CB also provided a number of documentary exhibits, attesting to the aforementioned, for the Panel’s consideration.
Kathryn Prendergast (‘KP’)
37. KP outlined in her written witness statement that she is the Clinical Services Manager of Imaging at the Hospital and that she has been in that role since 01 May 2024. KP further outlined that at the time of the incident concerning the Registrant, she was acting as the interim Clinical Services Manager. KP also told the Panel that she is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer.
38. KP also confirmed to the Panel that the Registrant commenced employment with CHG, as a Senior Radiographer, on 01 January 2022. KP also confirmed the Registrant’s role requirements, as outlined by CB above.
39. KP stated that the Registrant was an experienced Senior Radiographer however, she informed the Panel that he had not used the model of CT scanner before joining the Hospital and that whilst he was familiar with all of the CT language and terms regarding the scanner, he needed specific training on how to use this specific scanner. KP told the Panel that she completed this training with the Registrant during his first few weeks in his role. KP also told the Panel that during the Registrant’s first twelve months at the Hospital, she worked alongside the Registrant on the CT scanner, eventually signing him off, having completed his competencies, on 23 February 2022. KP also stated that on 14 February 2023, she signed off the Registrant’s yearly update of his CT competencies, as 100% completed successfully, as she was satisfied that he could work autonomously on the scanner.
40. KP told the Panel that she was first made aware of the concerns from a colleague Radiographer on 02 January 2024, and having been made
12
aware of the concerns she escalated them to the Director of Clinical Services at the Hospital, CB.
41. KP told the Panel that her initial reaction to seeing the six images was one of shock, and that as a Radiographer (since 2018) she had never seen images reconstructed like this before.
42. KP stated that the images on the scanner were soft tissue 3D ‘reformats’ of six patient’s upper abdomen and pelvis. KP also told the Panel that she did not initially know which hospital the six patients attended as this information is not shown on the scanned images. However, the Clinical Record Interactive Search System (‘CRIS’) was utilised to look up the patients and identify when their appointments were and that they were also able to identify that these patients were not Highfield Hospital patients (as the CT scanner moved between different CHG sites). KP also informed the Panel that all six of the patients were female and that whilst scan images on the CT scanner, cannot be selected by gender they can be sorted by anatomical area and then the patient’s names makes the gender obvious.
43. KP also informed the Panel that on 09 January 2024, she, along with other colleagues, met with the Registrant to inform him that an internal investigation would be commenced. On 11 January 2024, KP also told the Panel that she received a statement from the Registrant which outlined, amongst other things, that he was unfamiliar with the CT scanner. KP told the Panel that she refuted this statement as the Registrant had been working autonomously as a Radiographer since she had signed off his competencies on 14 February 2023 and that at this point, she was satisfied that the Registrant was confident with the CT scanner and she confirmed that he had not raised any issues relating to it.
44. KP also informed the Panel that within the same statement, dated 11 January 2024, the Registrant had also outlined that he had created the images as part of his continued learning as he needed to familiarise himself with the technology and post processing available. KP told the Panel that she again refuted this suggestion by the Registrant because as a Radiographer, he would not need to familiarise himself with the technology and post processing (altering the image to add layers back to it, including skin) available in this situation as this would only apply in examples such as aneurysms, issues with vessels or extremities. KP also explained that the anatomical site of the abdomen is not something that the post processing screening would be used for as the post processing tool would not give any additional helpful diagnostic information. KP stated that the only situation where the use of the post processing tool could be
13
used for was if a patient had a large lipoma (a benign tumour of fatty tissue). KP also outlined that, in her opinion, there would be no clinical justification (save for in the case of a lipoma) for re-rendering the images and that his actions caused her ‘high concern’.
45. KP also provided a number of documentary exhibits, attesting to the aforementioned, for the Panel’s consideration.
Submissions from the Registrant
46. The Panel noted that the Registrant had outlined, in his email dated 20 September 2025, that ‘[T]he allegations have been brought about by pure speculation from a colleague and assumptions have been made and escalated’. Having regard to this statement, the Panel noted that the Registrant appeared to contest the Allegation.
47. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant provided a written submission to the HCPC, dated 11 January 2025 (contained within the HCPC final hearing bundle), which the Panel had regard to, as follows:
‘Regarding this case may I please make the following points to put to the panel in my defence.
1. This was a complete on [sic] off incident a year ago and no patient or member of staff where harmed in any way.
2. No medical images where [sic] altered in any way or saved or downloaded to any other device.
3 I no longer work in that particular field of Radiology and never will again 4 I will never undertake any bank work locum work or work at any private company.
5 My only wish is that I can continue with my part time job with the NHS until my retirement in 3 years. time. [sic]
6. If I offended anybody at all I am truly sorry and I can assure the panel it will never happen again this is my only blemish in a 40 year career as a Radiographer.
7 I have attached 4 Character Witness Statements from colleagues which show this incident is completely out of character. Regards
Ian Hardman’
14
Decisions on Facts
Panel’s Approach
48. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.
49. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the witnesses’ oral evidence and it had regard to the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundles (outlined above), as well as having regard to the oral and written submissions made by the parties.
50. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes titled: “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.
Stem
‘As a registered Radiographer (RA26995):
51. The Panel was satisfied on the evidence before it, namely the certificate of HCPC Registration, that the Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer and that his registration number is RA26995.
52. The Panel was also satisfied, on the witnesses’ evidence before it, that the Registrant was employed as a Radiographer.
53. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that the stem of the Allegation was made out.
Particular 1 – PROVED
1. On or about 20 December 2023, you reconstructed one or more CT scans of the abdominal and/or pelvic area of female patients in soft tissue 3D format without any or any adequate clinical justification.
54. The Panel had regard to the witnesses’ evidence and to the material contained within the HCPC final hearing bundle. Having done so, the Panel determined that the witness evidence from CB and KP was clear, consistent, highly persuasive and reliable. The Panel also noted that CB and KP’s witness statements and oral evidence to it, was supported by documentary evidence attesting to their written and oral accounts. In contrast to this, the Panel considered the Registrant’s written submissions and determined them to be inconsistent, unsubstantiated and unreliable.
15
55. Having formed a view about the evidence presented to it, the Panel next considered whether the Registrant, on 20 December 2023, reconstructed one or more CT scans of the abdominal and/or pelvic area of female patients in soft tissue 3D format. In doing so, the Panel noted that it had been provided with a copy of the six CT scan images which it was said had been reconstructed and having reviewed the images, the Panel concluded that it was clear from the images, that they pertained to six female patients’ abdominal and/or pelvic areas. In forming its view, the Panel noted that the scan images each clearly showed soft tissue (i.e. skin) and that on each of the six images provided the patient’s genitalia was clearly visible.
56. The Panel also noted from the witness and documentary evidence before it, that it had been confirmed, during CHG’s investigation into the Registrant’s conduct, that the six images placed before the Panel were captured by the CT scanner on 20 December 2023 and that it was the Registrant who was using the CT scanner on this date and at this time.
57. Furthermore, in considering the same point, the Panel also noted that the Registrant did not appear to contest that he had reconstructed one or more CT scans of the abdominal and/or pelvic area of female patients in soft tissue 3D format. In forming this view, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s written statement to CHG (outlined in full below), dated 11 January 2024:
‘This statement is regarding the allegations of "creating" images irrelevant (sic) to the patients diagnosis. My role at the Highfield Hospital is to run a Mobile CT Scanner and provide diagnostic scans for a Radiologist to report. Although very experienced I am completetly (sic) unfamiliar with the GE CT Scanner provided at Highfield. This has led to a sharp learning curve and when scanning and after I need to familiarise myself with all the technology and post processing available. This has come about from the use of a process called volume rendering which is a technique that creates a 3D visual illustration of CT volumetric data for display from any desired perspective. This is useful when needing Angiography or Endoscopic information. This begins from a baseline image of the whole volume, in this case a female torso and this is then "rendered" down to view vasculature, viscera and skeletal information. This baseline image has been added to image list of the particular patient. Although this image is of no useful value to a reporting Radiologist I did not feel that it needed to be deleted or the image of a computer generated female torso would
16
be offensive to anyone. The accusation is that I have used the scanner to create images of female torsos for my own gratification. This is just not true. Should that be my desire as everybody knows i am only a few clicks away on the internet from obtaining far superior images, my use of this technique on the scanner was purely for my own education to enhance my skills as a Radiographer. No images from the CT Scanner have been downloaded, printed or sent elsewhere by myself, nor any patient harmed in any way by my actions. After 40 years as a Radiographer it is extremey (sic) distressing to have my integrity questioned in this way. Since joining Circle Health Group two years ago I have endeavoured to be a valued and worthy member of the team and hope to be so in the future’
58. Additionally, the Panel considered the Registrant’s statement to the HCPC, dated 11 January 2025, in which he stated ‘…This was a complete on (sic) off incident a year ago and no patient or member of staff where (sic) harmed in any way…’.
59. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel determined that on 20 December 2023, the Registrant reconstructed six CT scans of the abdominal and/or pelvic area of female patients in soft tissue 3D format.
60. The Panel next considered whether there was any or any adequate clinical justification for the Registrant’s actions in reconstructing the six images.
61. The Panel again noted that the Registrant did not appear to contest reconstructing the patients’ images, but noted that he had, during the CHG investigation, suggested that the images were created and ‘rendered’ for educational and/or training/learning purposes. The Panel rejected the Registrant’s assertion in this regard. In doing so, the Panel noted both CB and KP’s evidence to it, that the Registrant was a very experienced Radiographer who had access to other learning material (both online and via in person training) and that the Registrant’s role, as a Radiographer, would not require him to view 3D images or report on them (as this was the role of the Radiologist). The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s justification for creating the images for ‘educational/training/learning’ needs, was not supported by the evidence presented to it.
62. The Panel next considered whether there could be any other clinical justification for recreating the images in the 3D format. In doing so, it again noted the witnesses’ evidence to it. In particular it noted that KP had stated
17
that she could not think of an example of where the Registrant’s actions would be required, save for in the instance of a lipoma, and that such a reason was not present in any of the six cases. The Panel also had regard to CB’s evidence to it that, in her view, there was also no clinical justification for the Registrant’s actions in recreating the images.
63. Consequently, having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied to the required standard, that there was no clinical justification for the Registrant reconstructing the images in the manner which he had and that the facts contained within Particular 1 were proved.
Particular 2 – PROVED
2. The conduct at allegation 1 was sexually motivated.
64. The Panel again carefully considered the evidence before it and in doing so it had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ and in particular paragraphs 8 to 14. In addition, the Panel also had regard to guidance outlined in Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin); Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763; and Arunkalaivanan v GMC [2014] EWHC 873 (Admin).
65. Having done so, the Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s actions, in recreating 3D soft tissue images of six female patients abdominal and/or pelvic areas was in pursuit of a sexual relationship and determined it was not. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the patient’s original unaltered scans had been undertaken by different Radiographers working at different sites within the CHG group. The Registrant had therefore not met any of the six patients concerned and whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant could have obtained the patient’s contact details from the CRIS system, there was no suggestion before the Panel that he had attempted to do so.
66. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s actions could have been undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification and the Panel determined that they were. In forming this view, the Panel noted that it had received direct evidence (from CB and KP) that there was no clinical justification for the Registrant’s actions in recreating the 3D soft tissue images and the Panel also reminded itself that it had already rejected the Registrant’s assertion that he had recreated the images for education and/or learning purposes (for the reasons outlined above).
67. Further, the Panel also noted that the six images were created at speed (within 33 minutes) and early in the morning (between 07:54am and
18
08:27am). Having regard to this the Panel determined that the Registrant was rushing to create the scan images which best suited his sexual proclivities, early in the morning and doing so, potentially, prior to patients entering the CT scanner.
68. The Panel also re-considered the images and noted, as it had before, that each image captured female patient’s genitalia (he did not recreate any images pertaining to male patients) and in this respect the Panel considered the images to be sexual in nature. Further, with the absence of any plausible explanation as to why he created the images, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated.
69. Consequently, the Panel found Particular 2 proved.
Decision on Grounds
70. The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 and 2 amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct under Article 22(1)(a)(i) of the Health Professions Order 2001.
71. In doing so, it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it took account of Mr Mullen’s written and oral submissions, and the Registrant’s written submissions.
72. In order to assist with its decision, the Panel considered the HCPC’s ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics’.
73. Having done so, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct had breached the following standards:
Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics:
• 1.1 - You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity;
• 1.4 – You must make sure that you have valid consent, which is voluntary and informed, from service users who have capacity to make the decision or other appropriate authority before you provide care, treatment or other services;
• 5.1 – You must treat information about service users as confidential; and
• 9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
19
74. Having determined that the Registrant had breached professional standards, the Panel next considered whether the matters found proved amounted to misconduct.
75. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions of reconstructing six scans of female patients’ genitalia in 3D soft tissue imagery, without clinical justification and for sexual gratification purposes, amounted to conduct which fell very far below the standards expected of a registered Radiographer and could only be considered to be very serious and deplorable in nature.
76. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the Registrant was a senior and experienced Radiographer, who clearly knew how to perform scans properly and to the required standards. In accessing six patients records and reconstituting their scans for sexual gratification purposes, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions also breached patient confidentiality and amounted to an abuse of his position and patient trust. The Panel also concluded that patients should be able to have trust and confidence in professionals to act in line with expected standards and not abuse their position.
77. Furthermore, in determining that the Registrant’s conduct could only be considered extremely serious, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s actions were not isolated in nature, but were repeated on multiple occasions (six patients), and this also led the Panel to conclude that the Registrant’s conduct fell very far below that expected of him and amounted to misconduct.
78. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the matters outlined at Particular 1) and Particular 2), each represented serious breaches of professional standards, falling far below the behaviour expected of a registered Radiographer and that each matter amounted to misconduct.
Decision on Impairment
79. Having found misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. In doing so, the Panel took into account all of the evidence before it and it again had regard to the oral and written submissions made by Mr Mullen. In addition, the Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s written submissions and the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’. The Panel also accepted the Legal Assessor’s legal advice.
20
80. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.
81. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable now and/or in the future to repeat conduct of the kind that led to his misconduct. In reaching its decision the Panel also had particular regard to the issues of insight, remorse and remediation.
82. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) Mrs Justice Cox stated:
“When considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue.”
83. The Panel also had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:
o whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;
o whether it has been remedied; and
o whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.
84. The Panel considered the Registrant’s conduct was not easily remediable and could only be considered to be that which was attitudinal in nature.
85. In considering whether the Registrant had demonstrated insight into his conduct, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s emails (as outlined above) and his statement to CHG, during the course of its investigation. In doing so, the Panel noted that the Registrant had provided conflicting accounts of his actions in that he had accepted and denied his conduct. On this point, the Panel noted that the Registrant had sought to suggest that his actions, in reconstituting the scans, were for his learning and development purposes, a suggestion which the Panel had rejected based on the evidence presented to it.
86. Further, the Panel also determined that the Registrant’s submissions to it were extremely limited in nature and scope and focussed entirely upon himself. Further, the Panel also considered that the Registrant did not offer any meaningful insight into the impact of his actions upon service users, the wider public, his colleagues, or confidence in the wider profession.
21
87. Additionally, the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s submissions did not adequately address the underlying causes or reasons for his conduct and it noted that the Registrant had expressed no remorse for his actions, or the harm caused as a result of his actions.
88. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant’s submission was very limited in nature and scope and also demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight, into his misconduct, on his part.
89. In considering whether the Registrant is currently impaired on the personal component, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had only provided very limited information to it, and that he had not engaged in a meaningful manner in the regulatory proceedings.
90. Moreover, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had also not taken any steps to demonstrate that his conduct would not be repeated moving forward. This concerned the Panel because it noted in its earlier findings that the Registrant’s conduct was repeated in nature and there was nothing before the Panel for it to be satisfied that the Registrant has addressed the underlying causes of his conduct. In support of its view, the Panel noted that the Registrant had not provided any evidence to demonstrate successful completion of any Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’) which addressed his failings and the Panel also noted that the Registrant had suggested that he had not been practising as a Radiographer, in view of the imposition of the interim conditions of practice order, for a considerable period of time as his NHS contract had been terminated. There was therefore, nothing before the Panel to indicate that the Registrant had kept his Radiography skills and knowledge up-to-date.
91. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had not taken any steps to remediate his conduct and it was therefore likely that the Registrant’s conduct would recur. In the Panel’s view, this placed the public at a significant risk of harm.
92. Accordingly, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.
93. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds.
22
94. In relation to the public component of fitness to practise, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public policy issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:
“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”
95. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s conduct falls very far below the required standards of his profession and as such, brings his profession into disrepute. The Registrant’s conduct was very serious and repeated in nature.
96. The Panel was also of the view that the public have to be able to trust healthcare professionals to perform their role to an appropriate standard. The Panel was satisfied that the public would determine that it could not have confidence in the Registrant given that he has been found to have accessed patients’ records and scans without clinical justification, abusing his position in doing so, and then reconstructing scans to add soft tissue back onto the scan for sexual gratification purposes, on multiple occasions.
97. In light of the aforementioned, the Panel also considered that public trust and confidence in the wider profession and the HCPC as its regulator, alongside the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.
98. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
Decision on Sanction:
Panel’s approach
99. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Mullen on behalf of the HCPC, the Registrant’s representations to it and the character references provided by the Registrant.
100. The Panel referred to the ‘Sanctions Policy’ issued by the HCPC and it had in mind that the purpose of sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and
23
maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also aware of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate.
101. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
102. The Panel considered whether there were any mitigating factors in this case and determined that the only mitigating factor present was that the Registrant had made an apology, during the course of CHG’s investigation. However, the Panel considered the Registrant’s apology to be very limited in nature and not maintained throughout the regulatory proceedings, as he had sought to apportion blame for the referral to the HCPC and the resulting proceedings onto colleagues, in more recent correspondence with the HCPC.
103. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s previous good regulatory character was a factor that it ought to have regard to as a mitigating factor. In doing so, the Panel determined that it was incumbent on all registrants to act in accordance with the regulatory standards expected of them. Consequently, the Panel determined that not having a previous regulatory finding against him was not a factor which the Panel considered to be mitigating in terms of the Registrant’s actions in this case.
104. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be that:
i) the Registrant’s conduct was repeated;
ii) the patients were vulnerable in terms of: requiring a scan in the first instance; and in respect of the nature and region of the body where the scans were undertaken;
iii) the Registrant’s actions caused harm to service users and had the potential to cause harm to other service users and/or colleagues and to the wider reputation of the profession;
iv) the Registrant abused his position and breached patient confidentiality and trust; and
v) the Registrant had demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight, remorse and/or remediation.
105. The Panel considered the option of taking no action. This is an exceptional outcome and the Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case were not exceptional. The Panel decided that the option of taking no action
24
was not sufficient to protect the public or uphold the public interest in this case, in view of its findings.
106. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered the guidance in the Sanctions Policy that:
“(paragraph 101)…A Caution Order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases which:
• the lapse is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight;
• and has taken appropriate remediation”.
107. The Panel was of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the findings in this case, nor were the Registrant’s actions isolated or relatively minor in nature. Further, the Panel had also determined that there was a risk of repetition and that the Registrant had not shown ‘good insight’. Therefore, the Panel determined that a Caution Order was not appropriate. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.
108. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel considered that it would not be possible to draft conditions of practice which address the Registrant’s conduct because the Registrant has failed to engage with the regulatory process in a meaningful manner and the Registrant’s conduct was attitudinal in nature. Furthermore, the Registrant has also failed to demonstrate remorse. The Panel therefore determined that a conditions of practice order was not workable, proportionate or appropriate in this case.
109. The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy states:
‘(paragraph 121) … A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
25
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• the Registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings’
110. Having had regard to the Sanctions Policy, the Panel considered that a suspension order was not appropriate in this case. In forming this view, the Panel again noted its earlier findings that the concerns raised in this case represent a very serious breach and departure of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. Further, the Panel also noted its findings that the Registrant has not demonstrated appropriate insight into his conduct, nor had he provided any information regarding any attempts to address his conduct. The Panel was therefore not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct would be unlikely to be repeated. Given the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct, combined with his lack of meaningful engagement in the proceedings, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would also be undermined if a suspension order was imposed.
111. The Panel next considered a striking off order. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort. The Panel noted that the HCPC Sanction Policy document states that a striking off order is appropriate where:
‘(paragraph 130) … there has been serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving:
• …
• …
• …
• …
• abuse of professional position, including vulnerability;
• sexual misconduct;
• …’
and
‘(paragraph 131) … where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, the public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• lacks insight;
26
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.’
112. The Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case are such that the Registrant acted in a deliberate and repeated manner and the Panel considered his actions to be very serious. Further, the Registrant has also failed to demonstrate insight into his conduct. Consequently, the Panel was of the view that these factors, when taken together, illustrate the actions of a Registrant: who lacks any meaningful insight; who has demonstrated insufficient remorse for his actions; and one who has not shown any willingness or intention to resolve matters moving forward. Further, the Panel was also of the view that the Registrant had not provided any evidence that his actions would not be repeated and in the Panel’s view this presented an ongoing risk to the public which needed to be guarded against.
113. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order was appropriate to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel formed the view that this sanction was the only appropriate sanction given the serious nature of the conduct and would also send a clear message to other professionals. The Panel considered that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.
114. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the impact of such an order on the Registrant. In doing so, the Panel noted that the Registrant had stated that he wished to continue practising as a Radiographer until his retirement. However, having taken this information into account, the Panel considered that notwithstanding any impact that such an order may have on the Registrant, the public interest considerations in this case significantly outweighed any detriment that might be caused to the Registrant by the imposition of a striking off order.
115. Accordingly, the Panel made an Order directing the Registrar to strike off the Registrant from the HCPC Register.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Ian Hardman from the HCPC Register on the date that this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order:
1) The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPC submissions and it also took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Interim Orders”.
2) The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months, under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. For the same reasons given in its determination on sanction, the Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. The Panel was of the view that to make no order in this case would be wholly inconsistent with its earlier findings. The Panel also concluded that an interim order was necessary for the protection of the public and was also necessary in the public interest. The Panel therefore determined that an eighteen-month Interim Suspension Order is appropriate and proportionate pending the expiration of an appeal period.
3) 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 Mr Ian C Hardman