Archie Cameron

Preliminary Matters

Witness Key

1. Throughout this decision, the witnesses will be referred to as follows:

• Witness 1/Colleague A – who is a registered Operating Department Practitioner (“ODP”). At the relevant time, Colleague A was employed as a Band 5 ODP at the [redacted] Hospital (“the Hospital”) and was managed by the Registrant.

• Witness 2/Colleague B - who is a registered ODP. At the relevant time, Colleague B was employed as an ODP at the Hospital and was managed by the Registrant.

• Witness 3/Colleague C - who at the relevant time was a Theatre Assistant at the Hospital.

• Witness 4/Colleague D – who is a registered ODP. At the relevant time Colleague D was a newly qualified Band 5 ODP who occasionally did some shifts at the Hospital but was not line managed by the Registrant.

• Witness 5/Colleague E – who is a registered Nurse. At the relevant time, Colleague E was employed as a Sister in orthopaedic theatres at the [redacted] however, she had been redeployed to the Hospital for around 4 months during the Covid- 19 pandemic.

• Witness 6/Colleague F - who is a registered ODP. At the relevant time Colleague F was employed as an ODP at the Hospital and was managed by the Registrant.

• Witness 7/Colleague J – who is a registered ODP. At the relevant time Colleague J was employed as an ODP at the Hospital and was managed by the Registrant.

• Witness 8/Colleague M – who is a registered ODP. At the relevant time Colleague M was employed as an ODP at the Hospital and was managed by the Registrant.

• Witness 9 – who is a registered Nurse. At the relevant time Witness 9 was employed by the [redacted] University Health Board (“the Health Board”). Witness 9 commissioned the disciplinary investigation against the Registrant.

• Colleague G – who at the relevant time was an ODP at the Hospital.

• LM/Colleague I – ODP colleague who was based at another hospital with the Health Board, and who worked with Colleague J.

Service

2. The Panel first considered the issue of service as the Registrant was not in attendance. The Panel was referred to the service bundle which had been provided to the Panel in advance of the hearing.

3. The Panel had been provided with a Certificate signed by the Registrar dated 8 July 2025, detailing the Registrant’s registered email address on the HCPC Register.

4. The Panel had also been provided with the Notice of Hearing letter dated 8 July 2025 sent to the Registrant, on that date, to his registered electronic mail address, as it appeared in the HCPC Register. The Notice of Hearing letter confirmed the dates (20-24 October and 10-14 November 2025) and times of the hearing as well as informing the Registrant that this would be a virtual hearing. It also offered the Registrant an opportunity to attend at the hearing.

5. The service bundle also contained a delivery notice provided by Microsoft Outlook to confirm that delivery of the email took place on 8 July 2025, at 09:28.

6. The Hearings Officer submitted that good service had been effected.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred to the Health Professions Order 2001 and the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”), namely rule 6. The Legal Assessor advised that good service would be effected by notifying the Registrant of the time, date and venue (virtual) of the hearing at his registered electronic mail address, with 28 days’ notice.

8. The Panel was satisfied on the evidence before it that fair, proper and reasonable notice of the hearing today had been served on the Registrant, having been sent to the Registrant at his registered electronic address on 8 July 2025. The Panel therefore determined that notice had been properly served in accordance with the Rules.
Proceeding in Absence

9. Ms Steels submitted that if the Panel found good service, it should proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself.

10. Ms Steels drew the Panel’s attention to the various emails sent by the Registrant to the HCPC/HCPTS which confirm that the Registrant would not be attending. Ms Steels submitted that these are clear and unequivocal that the Registrant does not want to engage in the hearing.

11. The Registrant’s emails in terms of not attending at the hearing are as follows:

• Email to the HCPTS on 10 September 2024 – ‘I will not be attending any of the hearings and I do not wish to have any part in the proceedings.’

• Email to Blake Morgan LLP on 29 May 2025 – ‘…I will not be attending nor calling any witnesses. I do not wish to participate in the process at all.’

• Email to the HCPTS on 17 June 2025 – ‘As I said in my previous reply, I have no intention of taking part in the proceedings. Please feel free to schedule it for whenever you like. I will not be attending.’

• Email to Blake Morgan LLP on 2 September 2025 – ‘I will not be attending the hearing or offering any further evidence.’

• Email to HCPTS on 7 October 2025 – ‘I shall not be attending.’

• Email to HCPTS on 14 October 2025 – ‘I shall not be taking part in the hearings at all.’

12. Ms Steels submitted that these matters have been ongoing for approximately four years, and that the witnesses are available and ready to give evidence in the coming days. She submitted that it is in the interest of the witnesses and the wider public interest, that evidence is provided without further delay.

13. Ms Steels submitted that the Registrant has not asked for a postponement or adjournment, and there is no indication he would attend at a later date if the hearing was postponed or adjourned.

14. Ms Steels submitted that whilst proceeding in the Registrant’s absence would create some disadvantage to him as he is not here to put his case, the Panel is inquisitorial and has a duty to test the evidence.

15. Ms Steels submitted that in all the circumstances it is in the public interest for the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

16. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the factors it should take into account when considering proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. This included reference to rule 11 of the Rules and to the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, R v Jones (Anthony) [2003] 1AC1 and Sanusi v GMC [2019] EWCA Civ 1172. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS guidance ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ dated August 2025.

17. The Panel considered all the information before it, together with the submissions made by Ms Steels on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing letter had been sent to the Registrant on 8 July 2025 informing him of the hearing.

18. The Panel concluded that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant for the following reasons:

• The Registrant has communicated with the HCPC and HCPTS on numerous occasions over the past year to state that he will not be attending the hearing. In the Panel’s view, his emails are clear and unequivocal. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily and deliberately absented himself.

• The Registrant has not sought an adjournment of the hearing and there is no indication from him that he would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Therefore, re-listing this hearing would be unlikely to secure his attendance.

• This case is an old one with the Particulars of Allegation dating back to 2020/2021, and the witnesses are lined up to give evidence this week. Any delay would cause inconvenience to the witnesses, and the further passage of time if the case was adjourned, could have a negative impact on memory.

• The Panel recognised that there may be disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions. However, he has provided some information to the HCPC, in which he denies the Allegation (save for Particular 5), and this information is included within the bundle for the Panel to take into account when reaching its decisions.

• The Panel considered that the public interest in proceeding with final hearings expeditiously, particularly as the witnesses are ready and able to give evidence, outweighed any disadvantage to the Registrant and concluded that the hearing should proceed in his absence.

Privacy

19. During the course of Colleague B’s evidence, she indicated that she would be mentioning her health. In the circumstances, Ms Steels submitted that any reference to Colleague B’s health should be heard in private.

20. The Panel heard and took into account the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ dated February 2025.

21. The Panel acknowledged that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that hearings are conducted in public for transparency. However, health issues relating to Colleague B should be kept private, as she has a right to protection of her private life, so far as it relates to her health. The Panel was satisfied that the elements of the evidence which relate to Colleague B’s health can be easily separated from other evidence, and thus only part of Colleague B’s evidence should be held in private.

22. During the course of Colleague M’s evidence, mention was made to her health and to her family life. Ms Steels made an application for those parts to be heard in private.

23. For the same reasons as those set out above in paragraph 21, the Panel determined that any evidence relating to Colleague M’s health or family should be heard in private.

Admissions

24. The Registrant was not in attendance nor legally represented. However, the bundle contained a ‘RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF ALLEGATION’ signed by the Registrant and dated 13 November 2024. This document asks the Registrant to indicate whether he admitted the facts alleged against him. The Registrant indicated ‘NO’ in reply to all the Particulars of Allegation expect for Particular 5 (a-c) whereby he indicated ‘YES’.

25. The Panel asked whether the HCPC was seeking to rely on the admission rather than to call evidence in relation to Particular 5.

26. Ms Steels submitted that the Panel could rely on the written admission as it is clear and unequivocal. She submitted that this is therefore sufficient to prove Particular 5 of the Allegation.

27. The Panel heard and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note titled ‘Admissions’ dated October 2024, in particular paragraphs 13-15, 17 and 22.

28. Ms Steels made further submissions, that whilst there has been no formal follow up with the Registrant since the written admissions on 13 November 2024, his position as to Particular 5 has remained consistent throughout the HCPC investigation. Ms Steels submitted that in an email from the Registrant dated 2 October 2023, which is contained in the bundle, he states that, ‘…I do not accept the version of events that have been detailed in the evidence. Apart from the incident where I asked a member of staff to go to work in ITU.’

29. Ms Steels submitted that if the Panel does not accept the written document as a formal admission, the HCPC will call evidence on that Particular of the Allegation but will also ask the Panel to take the written admission as evidence in support.

30. The Panel had regard to the submissions and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Admissions. It noted that paragraph 17 states that:

‘If the Registrant indicates that any facts are admitted, the HCPC will liaise with the Registrant, particularly if the Registrant is unrepresented, to ensure that the admissions are unequivocal.’

31. The Panel had no evidence before it that, following the Registrant’s written indication that he admitted Particular 5, the HCPC had liaised with him to ensure that the admission was unequivocal.

32. The Panel took into account that the Registrant is not represented. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the HCPC informed him that it would be asking the Panel to rely on his admission for Particular 5 rather than calling evidence.

33. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s written admission in relation to Particular 5 does not provide any context, due to the constraints of the form, and therefore it is not clear whether at the time he made the admission he was fully aware of the context that Colleague M describes in her evidence.

34. In all the circumstances the Panel was not satisfied that the written admission was unequivocal. It was therefore not satisfied that it could find Particular 5 proved by admission.

35. Although the Panel did not accept the admission, it did acknowledge that the written admission is evidence which it can take into account, alongside the evidence to be called by the HCPC, when determining whether Particular 5 is proved.

Hearsay

36. At the outset of the hearing the Panel was informed that a preliminary hearing had ruled that Colleague G’s evidence could be admitted as hearsay so that evidence was included in the bundle.

37. The Panel was due to hear oral evidence from 9 witnesses. Colleague F had been warned to attend on 22 October 2025 and with a possible fall-back date of 23 October 2025.

38. As the hearing was progressing in a timely manner, the Panel had asked the Hearings Officer to make contact with Colleague F to see if he could attend on 21 October 2025. The Hearings Officer sent an email, but no reply was received.

39. On 22 October 2025, the Panel was expecting to hear evidence from Colleague F given that this was his scheduled date to be called. The Hearings Officer emailed and telephoned Colleague F but received no reply and no answer.

40. At approximately 1pm on 22 October 2025, the Panel invited submissions from the HCPC as to what steps it would take in relation to Colleague F.

41. Ms Steels applied for Colleague F’s evidence to be admitted as hearsay. Ms Steels set out the chronology as follows:

• 15 March 2024 – by email timed 13:06, Colleague F emailed Blake Morgan LLP providing his signed witness statement.

• 15 March 2024 – by email timed 13:40, Blake Morgan LLP acknowledged safe receipt of the statement.

• 2 May 2025 – email sent by Blake Morgan LLP to Colleague F asking for details of any dates to avoid between June – December 2025, to enable the HCPTS to list the hearing.

• 7 May 2025 – email sent by Blake Morgan LLP chasing a response to email dated 2 May 2025.

• 7 May 2025 - email sent by Colleague F which in summary stated, ‘let me know when you need me and I’ll work around it.’

• 17 June 2025 - email sent by Blake Morgan LLP to say the final hearing was listed and that Colleague F would be required to give evidence on 22 October 2023 or 23 October 2023.

• 29 September 2025 – email sent by Blake Morgan LLP confirming that Colleague F would be required on 22 October 2025, with a backstop date of 23 October 2025. The email confirmed that Colleague F would be sent a link to join the hearing by the HCPTS.

• 14 October 2025 – email sent by Blake Morgan LLP providing Colleague F with his redacted witness statement and exhibits.

42. Ms Steels referred the Panel to Rule 10 of the Rules, the HCPTS Practice Noted titled ‘Evidence’ dated October 2024 and to the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin).

43. Ms Steels submitted that it would be fair and in the public interest to admit the evidence of Colleague F as hearsay. Ms Steels submitted that although the HCPC does not have a reason explaining Colleague F’s absence, the lack of reasons is not a bar to allowing the admission of his evidence. Ms Steels submitted that the HCPC and HCPTS has used its best endeavours to secure Colleague F’s attendance.

44. Ms Steels submitted that the evidence Colleague F provides relates to the alleged incident described at Particular 3 and that it is not sole and decisive because both Colleague M and Colleague G provide evidence of witnessing the same incident. Ms Steels submitted that although the Registrant would not have an opportunity to challenge Colleague F’s evidence, he would have had the opportunity to challenge Colleague M in relation to the alleged incident in Particular 3.

45. Ms Steels submitted that in relation to the nature of the evidence which is the subject of the application, this was all provided as part of a formal process. Colleague F’s HCPC witness statement contains a statement of truth and is signed and dated. It exhibits two documents which were prepared as part of the formal Hospital investigation and are therefore contemporaneous in nature.

46. Ms Steels submitted that the information from the Registrant appears to indicate that he has no recollection of the incident. Whilst the evidence is therefore in dispute, the challenge can be pursued with Colleague M who also gives evidence about this incident.

47. Ms Steels submitted that there is no suggestion that Colleague F has any malice or vendetta against the Registrant which would impact on the quality of his evidence or the fairness of its admission as hearsay.

48. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to factors it should take into account in considering a hearsay application. The Legal Assessor referred to the principles derived from the cases of: Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin), and Mansaray v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2023] EWHC 730. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Evidence’ dated October 2024, paragraphs 31-36 and to the Practice Note entitled ‘Securing Witness Engagement’ dated August 2023.

49. The Panel began its deliberations by asking itself whether the admission of the evidence would undermine the Registrant’s right to a fair hearing. The Panel took into account its duty to protect the public as well as its duty to ensure that hearsay evidence should only be admitted if it is relevant and fair.

50. The Panel considered the application in accordance with the approach set out in Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 and the non-exhaustive list set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on Evidence.

51. In relation to the nature of the material, the Panel noted that Colleague F’s HCPC statement was made in February 2024 and is based on the contemporaneous email and record of interview which were completed as part of the Hospital investigation. The Panel therefore considered that Colleague F’s statement was demonstrably reliable and was capable of being tested by other evidence, namely the contemporaneous documents.

52. The Panel noted that the statement of Colleague F is part of the evidence relied on by the HCPC in relation to Particular 3. The Panel considered whether the evidence of Colleague F is the sole and decisive evidence in relation to that Particular. The Panel took into account that the HCPC has provided other evidence which it relies on to support its case, including that of Colleague M and Colleague G both of whom provide corroborative evidence of the alleged incident at Particular 3. Whilst Colleague G’s evidence has been admitted as hearsay, Colleague M has provided oral evidence which was tested with questions from the Panel. The Panel concluded that Colleague F’s evidence is not the sole and decisive evidence for any of the Particulars to the Allegation.

53. The Panel took into account that the Registrant’s position appears to be that he has no recollection of this and therefore he is likely to challenge what is said. However, the Panel considered that as Colleague F’s evidence directly relates to the evidence of Colleague M, the Registrant would have had the opportunity to challenge the facts alleged by Colleague F, by cross-examining Colleague M.

54. The Panel noted that Colleague F had provided this statement in a professional capacity as a registered ODP. The Panel took into account that there was no evidence before it to suggest a difficult relationship between the Registrant and Colleague F, or that Colleague F had any reason to fabricate his evidence, as a result of any malice or a vendetta against the Registrant. In fact, Colleague F’s witness statement describes their relationship as follows:

‘We had a professional relationship and a very good relationship as colleagues.’

55. The Panel considered the seriousness of the Allegation, taking into account the impact which adverse findings might have on the Registrant’s career. The Panel accepted that the Allegation is serious and involves alleged sexual motivation. However, it noted that Colleague F’s evidence relates only to a single part of the Allegation, and as already set out in this decision, it is not the sole and decisive evidence.

56. The Panel had regard to whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of Colleague F. Whilst it did not have a reason for his non-attendance, there was no suggestion that this was an attempt to prevent a proper evaluation of the evidence, given the indication provided by Colleague F in May 2025 that he would make himself available to attend.

57. The Panel considered that the HCPC had taken reasonable steps to secure Colleague F’s attendance including sending him numerous emails. Further, the Panel noted that the HCPTS Hearings Officer had gone to great lengths in attempting to make contact with Colleague F by email and telephone over a two-day period. The Panel had regard to its options noting that it could adjourn the hearing to allow further attempts to be made to contact Colleague F, or it could of its own motion issue an order to compel Colleague F to attend. However, both of these options would involve a delay. The Panel had regard to its duty under Article 32(3) of the Health Professions Order 2001 which imposes a statutory obligation on panels to conduct proceedings expeditiously. The Panel did not consider that it was in the public interest or the Registrant’s interests to adjourn or delay the case.

58. The Panel bore in mind that its role today was to address the matter of admissibility, and that once hearsay evidence is admitted it must still be assessed by the Panel as to the appropriate weight to attach to it.

59. Based on the evidence and information before the Panel, and for the reasons set out above, the Panel considered that it was fair to admit the written evidence of Colleague F.

Background

60. The Registrant is a registered ODP.

61. He was employed by [redacted] University Health Board for approximately 25 years: he began as an ODP in 1994, subsequently moved up to a Band 7 Team Leader and later became the Lead ODP in 2014.

62. The Registrant had an operational and managerial role, managing the team of ODPs. In November 2020, the Registrant became the Band 7 ODP at the newly opened Grange Hospital which opened six months earlier than planned to meet the demand generated by the Covid19 pandemic. Prior to the move to the Hospital, the Registrant was based at the [redacted] Hospital. Some of the [redacted] staff relocated to the Hospital as did some staff from the [redacted] Hospital.

63. The concerns arising came to the attention of the HCPC following a referral by the Assistant Director at [redacted] University Health Board on 24 March 2021. This referral raised concerns about the Registrant’s conduct towards his colleagues at the the Hospital. This initially related to a single occasion. The allegation, which was made by Colleague B, alleged that, on 16 February 2021, he had moved behind her whilst she was leaning on a traction table, made sexual gestures, and had then placed his hands on her, preventing her from standing up straight or moving away, and telling her to ‘just relax’. This concern having been raised internally to the [redacted] University Health Board, on 23 February 2021, Witness 9 commissioned a disciplinary investigation into the Registrant.

64. The referral to the HCPC was made in tandem with the Hospital investigation. In the course of the local level investigation, a number of further incidents were alleged, occurring between January and March 2021. These expanded the scope of the local investigation, which in turn came also to the attention of the HCPC in its investigation.

65. These further alleged incidents related to occasions where the Registrant was said to have made inappropriate comments and gestures to other colleagues (including Colleagues C and M), and to have touched them inappropriately. The HCPC case is that these comments and actions appeared to have sexualised undertones.

66. The HCPC commenced an investigation into the Registrant, in the course of which statements were taken from the complainant witnesses and other witnesses to the incidents. The witnesses also provided more contemporaneous records or reports relating to the allegations in the form of local investigation reports and documentation which was provided to the HCPC. The accounts provided therein evidence the concerns which form the basis of the allegations made against the Registrant which are the subject of this hearing.

Evidence

HCPC

67. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give live evidence:

• Witness 1/Colleague A – HCPC witness statement dated 28 February 2024. The statement exhibits various documents from the Hospital investigation including an email sent to the Hospital on 19 April 2021, and the Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 10 June 2021.

• Witness 2/Colleague B – HCPC witness statement dated 3 March 2024. The statement exhibits two emails sent to the Hospital dated 17 March 2021 and 15 April 2021 together with the Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 22 June 2021.

• Witness 3/Colleague C – HCPC witness statement dated 2 March 2024 which exhibits a previous statement produced for the Hospital and the Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 9 November 2021.

• Witness 4/Colleague D – HCPC witness statement dated 13 March 2024 which exhibits the Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 11 June 2021.

• Witness 5/Colleague E – HCPC witness statement dated 18 March 2024 which exhibits a previous statement produced for the Hospital and the Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 11 June 2021.

• Witness 7/Colleague J – HCPC witness statement dated 19 April 2024 which exhibits the Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 10 June 2021.

• Witness 8/Colleague M – HCPC witness statement dated 3 March 2024. The witness statement exhibits an email sent to the Hospital dated 7 April 2021 together with the Hospital investigation meeting notes for the meetings on 10 and 24 June 2021.

• Witness 9 – HCPC witness statement dated 12 March 2024. The statement exhibits various documents from the Hospital investigation including correspondence with the Registrant, the notes from the investigation meeting with the Registrant on 16 September 2021, and the evidence provided by Colleague G.

68. The witnesses who gave live evidence did so under affirmation or oath. They adopted their witness statements and exhibits as their evidence in chief. They were asked supplemental questions by Ms Steels. The witnesses were also asked questions by the Panel, who took into account that in the Registrant’s absence it had a responsibility to test the witness accounts.

The Registrant

69. Included in the bundle was various correspondence between the Registrant and the HCPC as well as documents produced by the Hospital during conversations/meetings with the Registrant. In summary, the information includes as follows:

• Response to HCPC Allegation dated 13 November 2024;

• Hospital investigation meeting notes dated 17 June 2021 and 16 September 2021;

• Hospital notes from telephone call with the Registrant on 28 May 2021 and in relation to an email dated 29 May 2021;

• Letter of resignation, sent to the Hospital, dated 6 March 2022;

• Letter to HCPC informing of his retirement from ODP practice;

• Letter to HCPC asking for voluntary removal and

• Three character references.

Legal Advice

70. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in respect of the approach to take in determining findings of facts and the burden and standard of proof. The burden of proof rests on the HCPC and it is for the HCPC to prove the Allegation. The Legal Assessor provided advice on the issues of:

• Credibility and reliability, as per the guidance in R (Dutta) v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin), and Hindle v NMC [2025] EWHC 373 (Admin);

• The wording of the Allegation;

• Sexual in Nature and Sexual Motivation as per the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ dated August 2025;

• Weight of evidence including direction on hearsay evidence;

• Cross-admissibility with reference to the guidance set out in PSA v GMC & Garrard [2025] EWHC 318 (Admin);

• Good character and,

• Drafting decisions, as per the HCPTS Practice Note on Drafting.

Decision on Facts

71. Before turning its attention to each individual Particular of the Allegation, the Panel had regard to the fact that it was being invited by the HCPC to find the evidence in relation to all the Particulars cross-admissible on the ground of rebutting coincidence.

72. The Panel had heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor only on the ground of the evidence being considered as cross-admissible to rebut coincidence.

73. The Panel considered whether the evidence in question is capable of being cross-admitted, by evaluating whether there is a sufficient connection and similarity between the facts of the Particulars.

74. The Panel took into account that the Particulars all relate to the Registrant undertaking his ODP job at the Hospital, wherein he was the Band 7, senior member of staff with direct line management responsibility for a number of ODPs. The Panel took into account the type of conduct that is alleged against the Registrant, which includes non-consensual touching, and the making of non-clinical comments and gestures. The Panel noted that the allegations have a sexual undertone and include the alleged targeting of junior, female colleagues on each occasion.

75. On the basis of the above, the Panel concluded that there is a sufficient connection and similarity between the facts of the Particulars, such that the evidence is capable of being cross-admitted.

76. As the evidence is cross-admitted to rebut coincidence, the Panel noted that before attaching weight to the evidence it needed to exclude collusion or contamination as an explanation for the similarity, before it can assess the force of the argument that the allegations are unlikely to be the product of coincidence.

77. The Panel had regard to the written and oral evidence before it and noted that some of the alleged incidents were discussed amongst the colleagues. However, the Panel considered these discussions appeared to be akin to colleagues checking in with one another from a well-being perspective.

78. The Panel took into account that the evidence from Colleague J was that he had been spoken to as a friend and senior colleague by Colleagues B and M, seeking advice on what they should do. These conversations were not around sharing details of other concerns, but simply about each of them asking for reassurance and advice about what they alleged they had each experienced.

79. The Panel had no evidence before it that the different alleged incidents were discussed with others who were not said to be present, save for colleagues seeking advice on how to report or complain about an incident.

80. The Panel took into account that the initial evidence was gathered as part of the Hospital investigation. It noted that the witness interview meeting notes contained standard introductions which included the following:

‘I must remind you not to discuss this matter with work colleagues. It may also be necessary to re-interview you again during the course of the investigation.’

81. In oral evidence, the Panel heard that the witnesses and complainants were all instructed not to discuss the matters with each other, as set out within the meeting notes. The Panel accepted that the Hospital investigation was a formal one with strict parameters and that steps were taken to ensure the integrity of the investigation.

82. Whilst the Panel had found sufficient connection and similarity between the types of behaviours alleged, the Panel concluded that the alleged incidents are not so similar or repetitive to be indicative of collusion or contamination. The Panel noted that multiple colleagues witnessed different alleged incidents, and their evidence varies as to how they describe the incidents and how they perceived them. The Panel considered that this supports the conclusion that there was no collusion or contamination. Further, the fact that the alleged incidents are similar in nature but factually different also supports that they were not being fabricated between the colleagues.

83. The Panel took into account that there was no evidence before it to support that there was any malice or grudge against the Registrant such that it would explain any collusion. In fact, a number of the colleagues give evidence of a close and friendly relationship with the Registrant who they considered to be a supportive manager.

84. Based on the above, the Panel was satisfied that there had not been collusion or contamination of the evidence.

85. Having excluded collusion or contamination of evidence, the Panel acknowledged that when considering the evidence as a whole, the fact that there are multiple allegations of a similar type reduces the likelihood of there being an innocent explanation for them.

86. The Panel noted that it was not necessary for it to find one Particular of the Allegation proved before relying upon the evidence in respect of that Particular in support of the other Particulars. It therefore considered all the incidents together, holistically rather than sequentially.

87. In undertaking its exercise of considering the evidence to decide whether the HCPC had found each individual Particular of the Allegation proved, the Panel paid particular attention to the documentary evidence and undertook a cross check of HCPC witness statements with the Hospital statements and investigation meeting notes that were made nearer the time to the alleged incidents, to check for consistency.

Particular 1 – Found Proved

1. In Autumn 2020, in the presence of Colleague I and Colleague J, you pulled Colleague C’s drawstring of their scrub trousers open without her consent.

88. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleague C in support of this alleged fact. In her HCPC witness statement, Colleague C states that the Registrant’s hand emerged from her left side and ‘abruptly pulled the drawstring of her scrub trousers open’. This caused her to ‘instinctively’ grab her trousers. In oral evidence Colleague C described the action having been intended to cause her trousers to fall down. Colleague C’s written and oral evidence is that she had not consented to the Registrant doing this. Colleague C describes that Colleague J and Colleague I were present in the room when this occurred.

89. The alleged conduct was witnessed by Colleague J. In his HCPC witness statement he described how the ‘Registrant suddenly jumped up and acted like he was going to pull down Colleague C’s [scrubs]’. In his oral evidence Colleague J was not clear about whether the Registrant had pulled the drawstring, but he was clear that the Registrant had made direct contact with the scrub trousers. Colleague C said that if the scrubs had come undone, this would have resulted in exposure of whatever Colleague C was wearing underneath. Colleague J also commented that Colleague I was present in the room when this occurred.

90. The Registrant denied this Particular of the Allegation. In the notes of the Hospital investigation, on 16 September 2021, he stated that he did not remember the incident at all, and he did not work with or even know who Colleague C was.

91. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account that the evidence given by both Colleague C and Colleague J was entirely consistent with the evidence they provided to the Hospital investigation, which was more contemporaneous evidence provided closer to the event. Colleague C’s and Colleague J’s evidence is also corroborative of the other. Whilst Colleague J does not specifically recall the Registrant pulling the drawstring, this does not undermine the evidence of Colleague C. It is entirely plausible that Colleague J, who was sat further away, and who was not the person the conduct was aimed at, would be unsure whether the Registrant pulled at the ties or the scrubs material. However, he was unequivocal that direct contact had been made and that the action had been to pull the scrubs down.

92. The Panel took into account that both Colleague C and Colleague J are professional colleagues and there is no evidence of a reason to fabricate. Whilst the Registrant states that he has no recollection of this incident, he does accept that he visited the [redacted] Hospital a few times prior to the merger in order to meet with other managers. This is consistent with the evidence of Colleague J who states that while the Registrant was in the office with him and Colleague I (both of whom were seniors/managers), they were taking the opportunity to introduce the Registrant to other staff who were passing by the office.

93. For the above reasons, the Panel was satisfied that the evidence of Colleague C and Colleague J was reliable and that they were credible witnesses. The Panel had no explanation of why more than one witness would provide similar evidence of the same incident having occurred if it did not. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities the Panel found this Particular proved.

Particular 2 – Found Proved

2. On 11 January 2021, in the presence of Colleague B and a Service User, you:

a) Placed your hands near Colleague M’s bottom; and/or,

b) Said to Colleague M that you “could pop this right in there” or words to that effect, whilst holding a block needle in your hand; and/or

c) Said to Colleague M that it “would be lovely to pop this in your bottom” or words to that effect, whilst holding a block needle in your hand; and/or

d) Said to Colleague M that: “if I pricked you now, you would not feel anything” or words to that effect, whilst holding a block needle in your hand.

94. The Panel acknowledged that it needed to consider 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d separately, to decide whether it found each of them individually proved, and it did so. However, having regard to the evidence before it, the alleged conduct at Particular 2 was said to be part of one incident and therefore for the purpose of considering the reliability and weight of the evidence, it is artificial to separate out the different aspects. Therefore, the decision below deals collectively with the Particular.

95. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleagues M and B in respect of this alleged fact. Both Colleague M and Colleague B provide evidence that this incident occurred in the presence of a Service User, who had been brought down to theatre prematurely, prior to the usual briefing.

96. Colleague M’s witness statement sets out that on 11 January 2021, she and Colleague B were in the anaesthetic room. Given that the Service User had arrived without prior confirmation, Colleague M said that she approached the Registrant to discuss the situation, who in turn began assisting and engaging with the Service User. Both Colleague M and Colleague B recalled the Service User was awake and had capacity.

97. Colleague M’s statement describes that she was retrieving equipment from a lower cupboard with her back turned, when the Registrant made inappropriate sexual remarks about her bottom. Colleague M states that the Registrant said that ‘he would like to have it near and that it looked so good that he could put a needle in it.’ Colleague M states that the comments persisted and that ‘he positioned himself so closely that if he were any closer he could have pierced my bottom with the block needle.’ Colleague M’s evidence is that she did not feel the Registrant touch her bottom at any point.

98. Colleague M sets out in specific detail the comments she alleged the Registrant made, in her local investigation interview on 10 June 2021. These include, ‘oh I could pop this right in there’ and ‘it would be lovely to pop this in your bottom’.

99. Colleague M confirmed these in her oral evidence to the Panel, as well as detailing further comments made by the Registrant such as saying ‘would you look at the size of that’ and him referring to her bottom as a ‘full moon’.

100. The HCPC also relied on the evidence of Colleague B. In her HCPC witness statement Colleague B details how the Registrant was immediately behind Colleague M and started to make gestures as though he were placing his hands on Colleague M’s bottom. She describes that whilst doing so he was holding a block needle, and he joked about pricking Colleague M with it.

101. In the Hospital investigation interview on 22 June 2021, Colleague B states that the Registrant was putting his hands near Colleague M’s bottom ‘like he was going to pinch her bottom’ and he said, ‘oh if I pricked you now you could not feel anything’.

102. The Registrant denies this Particular of the Allegation. In his Hospital investigation discussion on 28 May 2021, he stated that he would never speak in such a manner in front of a patient in the anaesthetic room, plus he wondered why he would have needed to be there as there were already two staff members present.

103. The Panel found Colleague M to be a reliable witness, and, in its view, she provided consistent evidence with that given at the time to the Hospital Investigation. The Panel considered her evidence to be measured and it withstood questioning from the Panel in relation to some of the details, such as the size of the room and details about the Service User. Colleague M’s evidence is corroborated by Colleague B, whose account has also remained consistent over time. Whilst Colleague B could not recall some of the details about the Service User, the Panel considered that this added to the credibility of Colleague M’s evidence, as the Service User was Colleague M’s patient and therefore, she was the person who would have the knowledge, rather than Colleague B who was simply there helping out.

104. Whilst the Registrant denies this incident, the Panel considered that it is inherently plausible that it did occur. There is plausibility that the Registrant was asked for advice and support given that he was the manager and there was an unusual situation due to a Service User arriving without the theatre staff having been notified. There is plausibility that he would have access to a block needle as one would be present whilst preparing for the operation. The Panel had no evidence to undermine the evidence of Colleague M or Colleague B.

105. The Panel was satisfied that based on the consistent and corroborative evidence from Colleague M and Colleague B, that 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d are all proved.

Particular 3 - Found Proved

3. On 15 January 2021, in the presence of Colleague F and Colleague G and without Colleague M’s permission, you:

a) Unzipped Colleague M’s coat; and/or

b) Placed your hand inside Colleague M’s jacket touching the bottom of Colleague M’s bra; and/or

c) Rubbed Colleague M’s abdomen with your hand; and/or

d) Rubbed Colleague M’s lower back with your hand; and/or

e) Placed your hands around Colleague M’s waist

106. The Panel acknowledged that it needed to consider 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d and 3e separately, to decide whether it found each of them individually proved, and it did so. However, having regard to the evidence before it, the alleged conduct at Particular 3 was said to be part of one incident and therefore for the purpose of considering the reliability and weight of the evidence, it is artificial to separate out the different aspects. Therefore, the decision below deals collectively with the Particular.

107. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleague M who provides evidence that, on 15 January 2021, whilst she was in the changing room hallway talking to two colleagues, the Registrant approached, and without her consent unzipped her coat, placed his hand inside and rubbed over her body. Colleague M describes the Registrant as rubbing her abdomen and lower back, although there was no skin-to-skin contact as she had clothing on.

108. In the Hospital investigation, which took place nearer the time of the alleged incident, Colleague M gives more detail about the alleged rubbing describing how the Registrant did not ‘grab her boob but certainly touched [the] bottom of [her] bra.’

109. In oral evidence Colleague M stated that the Registrant had rubbed up to under her breasts. Colleague M said in both her written and oral evidence that she was shocked by the Registrant’s actions and that they had been without warning.

110. The HCPC also relied on the evidence of Colleagues F and G, both of which were admitted as hearsay. Colleague F’s witness statement describes the Registrant pulling the zipper of Colleague M’s jacket down and placing his hands around her waist and moving them on her body. This is consistent with the account he provided in the Hospital investigation.

111. Colleague G described to the Hospital investigation how the Registrant unzipped Colleague M’s puffer coat, put his hands inside, rubbed over her stomach and put his arms around her.

112. The Registrant denied this Particular of the Allegation. In the Hospital investigation discussion on 28 May 2021, the Registrant said that he did not remember any such incident. He did recall an incident whereby Colleague M was outside the changing rooms [redacted] and that he possibly would have put his arm around her [redacted]. In the Hospital investigation meeting on 17 June 2021, he states that the incident described is not something he would have done and questioned if it was inappropriate why someone didn’t say at the time.

113. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague M over the flat denial by the Registrant. The Panel found Colleague M to be a reliable witness, her evidence was consistent over time and was measured. She did not seek to elevate her version of the events, making it clear that there was no skin-to-skin contact and that he had not grabbed her breast. The Panel found no evidence that Colleague M had reason to fabricate her evidence, to the contrary, she acknowledged the Registrant had been supportive of her at work [redacted].

114. In placing significant weight on the evidence of Colleague M, the Panel also took into account that her evidence was corroborated by two other professionals, namely Colleagues F and G. Whilst each witness describes where the Registrant was touching slightly differently, whether they said waist, stomach, abdomen, back, or body, the Panel was satisfied that the evidence was anatomically consistent. It was satisfied that the slight variation in descriptions was accounted for by each witness’s own use of descriptive language and also their viewing point, given that Colleague M was experiencing the touching whereas Colleagues F and G were observing it, to the extent they could whilst the Registrant’s hands were inside the coat. The Panel acknowledged that it had not heard oral evidence from Colleagues F and G but concluded that it could still place significant weight on their evidence, given that it was provided to the Hospital as part of a formal investigation, it has remained consistent over time and was consistent with the evidence of others who were present.

115. In rejecting the Registrant’s written evidence, the Panel took into account that his denial in the Hospital investigation is quickly followed by a suggestion that there might have been an occasion, in the staff area, whereby he touched Colleague M to comfort her. The Panel considered that this explanation undermined the Registrant’s initial flat denial. In any event, the Registrant’s denial does not account for why three individual witnesses have provided such similar accounts of his behaviour in that instance.

116. Based on all the evidence before it, the Panel was satisfied that it is more likely than not that the incident occurred as alleged, and the Panel therefore found it proved.

Particular 4 – 4a, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f and 4g found proved. 4b found not proved.

4. On 16 February 2021, in the presence of Colleague A, Colleague D and Colleague E and without Colleague B’s consent, you:

a) Placed your body near Colleague B’s bottom; and/or

b) Made sexual gestures towards Colleague B;

c) Placed your hands on Colleague B’s hips; and/or

d) Pushed Colleague B over a table; and/or

e) Held Colleague B down over a table; and/or;

f) Told Colleague B “just relax” or words to that effect; and/or,

g) Rubbed Colleague B’s back.

117. The Panel acknowledged that it needed to consider 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f and 4g separately, to decide whether it found each of them individually proved. However, having regard to the evidence before it, the alleged conduct at Particular 4 was said to be part of one incident and therefore for the purpose of considering the reliability and weight of the evidence, it is artificial to separate out the different aspects. Therefore, the decision below deals collectively with the Particular.

118. The HCPC relied on evidence from a number of witnesses in relation to this Particular of the Allegation, namely, Colleagues A, B, D and E. The witnesses agree that the incident occurred on 16 February 2021, whilst they were stood at a traction table, which is a medical device on which a patient would lie down, although no patient was present.

119. Colleague B’s witness statement states that she was unfamiliar with the traction table set up and therefore sought advice. Colleague B states that Colleague A contacted the Registrant for support and he came to provide an explanation on how to use the table. Colleague B describes that during the explanation, the Registrant positioned himself directly beside her on her right side then moved to stand directly behind her ‘with only a few inches separating’ them. At this point he placed his hands on her hips and forcefully pushed her over the table, pushing her down and telling her to ‘just relax’ when she attempted to get up. She describes how she was held down there by the Registrant, in view of Colleagues A, D and E. Colleague B is clear that she did not consent to this conduct.

120. Colleague A’s witness statement describes how the Registrant stood behind Colleague B ‘as if he was penetrating or humping her’. Colleague A states that when Colleague B tried to stand up, the Registrant put his hand on her back and telling her to ‘just relax’. In an undated witness statement provided to the Hospital investigation Colleague A describes the Registrant as walking behind Colleague B and proceeding ‘to make sexual gestures out of [Colleague B’s] view while laughing.’ In Colleague A's Hospital investigation interview she was asked to describe everything that she could remember about this incident, and she described Colleague B leaning over the table and the Registrant being stood behind Colleague B and when she stood up the Registrant pushed her down and said, ‘just relax.’ In oral evidence, Colleague A provided further detail of the sexual gestures she said that she had witnessed, simulating intercourse.

121. Colleague D’s written evidence was that the Registrant had rubbed Colleague B’s back whilst she had been bent over the traction table. Colleague D states that she could not remember why this was happening, but it was supposed to be a joke as if she was in labour. The action of rubbing Colleague B’s back was portraying someone being helped with back pain. Colleague D states that her view was that the action was not in a sexual manner, though she states that Colleague B was embarrassed and red in the face and she herself did not find it funny.

122. Colleague E’s witness statement states that the Registrant pushed Colleague B down on the table, holding her there whilst rubbing her back up and down with his hands, whilst saying ‘just relax’. In the Hospital investigation meeting, Colleague E stated that she could tell Colleague B was embarrassed and she was blushing.

123. In oral evidence to answer the Panel’s questions, Colleague E stated that she was at the end of the table so did not see everything and was unable, for example, to see where both the Registrant’s hands were. She stated that she thought Colleague B was being held over the table with one hand and the other hand was rubbing Colleague B’s back, that Colleague B was bent over the table by the Registrant and that Colleague B was prevented from getting back up.

124. The Registrant denied this Particular of the Allegation. In the Hospital investigation meeting in June 2021, he said that he did not remember being in a situation like that, and that he barely knew Colleague B so it is not something he would do. Also, the ‘area/table would be dirty so he wouldn’t have done that’. He did recall an occasion whereby he put the traction table together for Colleague B but did not recall the alleged incident.

125. The Panel considered that all of the witnesses had corroborated each other in that they all described the Registrant placing his body near Colleague B’s bottom, during an incident in which Colleague B was bent over a traction table. All the witnesses describe the Registrant touching Colleague B and preventing her from getting up.

126. Whilst there is some slight variation as to whether the Registrant was stood directly behind or obliquely, the Panel did not consider this to undermine the evidence that the Registrant placed his body near Colleague B’s bottom. The Panel took into account that each witness was stood in a different position around the table and therefore would have had a slightly different view. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant did place his body near Colleague B’s bottom.

127. In relation to whether the Registrant made sexual gestures towards Colleague B, the Panel had careful regard to Colleague A’s evidence. The Panel noted that Colleague A’s evidence, about this very specific element of the incident, had varied over time, and that she is the only witness who describes sexual gestures. Initially, in the undated witness statement she provided to the Hospital, she stated that the Registrant proceeded to make sexual gestures out of Colleague B’s view while laughing. She does not specify what these gestures were. In the Hospital investigation interview she was asked, what the Panel considered to be a very open question, ‘to describe everything that she could remember about this incident’. In her response she did not make any comment about sexual gestures, which given the nature of such an allegation the Panel would have expected her to mention. In the HCPC witness statement she refers to the Registrant standing behind Colleague B ‘as if he was penetrating or humping her’. The Panel noted that this was the first reference to what Colleague A means by sexual gestures. In oral evidence, Colleague A provided further detail of the sexual gestures she said that she had witnessed, which she described as simulating intercourse. The Panel considered that her recollection of the gestures was vague and she did not provide clarity as to what the gestures were, and she could not recall whether the Registrant was moving his hips.

128. The Panel noted that there was no other evidence before it that the Registrant was making sexual gestures. Understandably, if the Registrant was directly behind Colleague B, then she would not have known if he was making any sexual gestures. However, the Panel would have expected either Colleagues E or D to have recalled something of this nature. Whilst they were stood at different points at the table from Colleague A, if the Registrant was simulating humping Colleague B, then it is probable he would have been moving his body in such a way that even from a side view this would have been evident.

129. Given the ambiguity in Colleague A’s evidence about the sexual gestures, and the lack of corroboration from any other witnesses, the Panel was not satisfied that the HCPC had discharged the burden of proof in relation to 4b and found this not proved.

130. The Panel was confident in relying on Colleague B’s evidence that the Registrant had placed his hands on her hips. Colleague B’s evidence was consistent over time, and the Panel considered her evidence to be clear and measured. Whilst Colleague B is the only witness who mentions the Registrant’s hands being on her hips, the Panel did not consider this to undermine her evidence. As the person who was being directly touched, it is inherently plausible that she will remember exactly where she was touched in comparison to her colleagues who were stood further away and at different places around the table. Colleague B’s evidence of non-consensual touching is supported by all the witnesses who describe the Registrant placing his hand/hands on her body. This gives weight to the credibility of Colleague B’s account.

131. In relation to whether the Registrant pushed Colleague B over a table, held her down over a table, told Colleague B to ‘just relax’, and rubbed Colleague B’s back, the Panel noted that each witness gives similar descriptions of what they say happened. Whilst the accounts provided by the witnesses do contain slightly different descriptions, for example about how many hands the Registrant had on Colleague B, the Panel took into account that it is commonplace for there to be some confusion in the finer detail of an incident. The Panel did not consider that the slight variation undermined the evidence as a whole. It took into account that the variation is accounted for by each witness having a different vantage point from which they were viewing the incident. Although the Panel had not relied on Colleague A’s evidence in relation to the sexual gestures, it did not consider that this undermined her credibility as a whole. In relation to all other matters, she had remained consistent in the evidence she gave throughout the Hospital investigation and within the HCPC proceedings, and the other aspects of her evidence was corroborated by at least one, or more, of the other witnesses.

132. The Panel found that the level of consistency and corroboration within the witnesses’ accounts dispels the Registrant’s evidence that the incident did not happen at all.

133. The Panel found on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did push Colleague B over a table, and he held Colleague B down over the table, and he told Colleague B to ‘just relax’ or words to that effect; and he rubbed Colleague B’s back.

Particular 5 – Found Proved

5. On 18 February 2021, you:

a) Touched Colleague M’s face without their consent; and/or,

b) Touched Colleague M’s ear without their consent; and/or,

c) Told Colleague M that “as you are so beautiful and good over ITU, you have to go” or words to that effect.

134. As with the other factual Particulars alleged, the Panel acknowledged that it needed to consider 5a, 5b, and 5c separately, to decide whether it found each of them individually proved, and it did so. However, having regard to the evidence before it, the alleged conduct at Particular 5 was said to be part of one incident and therefore for the purpose of considering the reliability and weight of the evidence, it is artificial to separate out the different aspects. Therefore, the decision below deals collectively with the Particular.

135. The HCPC relied on the evidence of Colleague M who described the incident as occurring during a conversation she initiated with the Registrant about her desire to change her allocation for the day from ITU to main theatre. In her witness statement she sets out how the Registrant had touched her, without her consent, with one hand, specifically he ‘stroked from the left side of [her] ear, down across [her] chin’. Whilst doing this he said, ‘as you are so beautiful and good over ITU, you have to go’. Colleague M states that there was no-one else present during this incident to corroborate it, and whilst a member of staff was walking past it is unlikely that they would have overheard.

136. In an email to the Hospital investigation dated 7 April 2021, Colleague M describes the incident in the same terms as above, and also in her Hospital investigation meeting on 10 June 2021. In oral evidence provided to the Panel, Colleague M demonstrated the action she had described in written form.

137. The Registrant’s response to the HCPC about the Allegation is that he does not accept the version of events that have been detailed in the evidence, ‘apart from the incident where I asked a member of staff to go to work in ITU.’ In his account given to the Hospital on 28 May 2021, he states he does not dispute that this may have happened, it was a way of letting her know that she was doing a good job in a department that she didn’t feel comfortable working in.

138. The Panel placed significant weight on the evidence of Colleague M. It found her evidence to be reliable and measured and considered her to be a credible witness. The evidence she gives on other matters within the Allegation is corroborated by other independent witnesses and that adds to the reliability of her evidence as a whole. The Panel noted that in relation to this Particular of the Allegation, the Registrant’s own written admission corroborates with the evidence of Colleague M.

139. The Panel considered that Colleague M’s account was wholly consistent throughout and that she was clear that this contact to her face and ear was made without her consent or permission, and that she found it inappropriate and distressing.

140. The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant did touch Colleague M’s face and ear without her consent, and whilst doing so told her that ‘as [she was] so beautiful and good over ITU, [she has] to go’ or words to that effect.

Particular 6 – 6a and 6c found proved. 6b found not proved.

6. On 23 March 2021, in the presence of Colleague A and Colleague E, you:

a) Held Colleague M’s hands in your hands without their consent; and/or

b) Rubbed Colleague M’s arm without their consent; and/or

c) Asked Colleague M “if I were to kiss you right now, would I get into trouble?” or words to that effect.

141. As with the other factual Particulars alleged, the Panel acknowledged that it needed to consider 6a, 6b, and 6c, separately, to decide whether it found each of them individually proved. However, having regard to the evidence before it, the alleged conduct at Particular 6 was said to be part of one incident and therefore for the purpose of considering the reliability and weight of the evidence, it is artificial to separate out the different aspects. Therefore, the decision below deals collectively with the Particular.

142. The HCPC relied on evidence from Colleague M who states in her witness statement that, on 23 March 2021, the Registrant walked over to her, held both of her hands whilst being close to her attempting to pull her off her stool and asked, ‘if I were to kiss you right now, would I get into trouble?’.

143. Colleague A provided evidence in respect of this Particular of the Allegation. Colleague A’s account is that during the incident the Registrant got closer and closer to Colleague M, ending at around 1 metre away, and that he said to her ‘if I kissed you, would I get into trouble?’.

144. Colleague E also provided evidence in relation to this incident. Colleague E could not recall the topic of conversation which took place, but she recalled the Registrant taking Colleague M’s hand and rubbing Colleague M’s arm.

145. The Registrant disputes M’s recollection of the incident. In the discussion with the Hospital on 28 May 21, he states that over the weeks before this alleged incident, he was constantly nagging his team to clean and tidy away the orthopaedic table attachments. He states that Colleague M was actually in the process of cleaning them and he said, ‘oh I could kiss you, well done.’ In the Hospital investigation interview on 17 June 2021, he states that he did remember walking into the theatre and holding Colleague M’s hands. He stated that Colleague M was cleaning the table attachments and he looked at her and thought ‘wow someone’s got it’. He stated that he did say ‘I could kiss you but I would get into trouble. You’ve got it.’ He stated that normally the table attachment would be on the floor and it was nice to see someone doing it and he was so pleased with what she was doing that he did say that. In his written response to the HCPC he denies this Particular of the Allegation in full.

146. The Panel relied on the evidence of Colleague M who it found to be a reliable witness, whose evidence has remained consistent over time. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence that the Registrant gave in his interview as part of the Hospital investigation. Whilst he has subsequently stated to the HCPC that he denies the allegation he has not provided any detail as to why he denies it or why he has changed his position, given his earlier admission. The Panel considered that his inconsistency undermines his credibility.

147. Colleague M’s evidence is also corroborated by Colleagues E and A. Colleague E supports the holding of hands and Colleague A supports the words spoken. The Panel did not consider the fact that Colleague A did not mention the holding of hands to undermine the evidence of Colleagues M and E, because it is commonplace for there to be inconsistency in some of the finer details. The Panel considered that Colleague E not witnessing what was said did not undermine the other witness evidence. It is entirely plausible, given Colleague E’s position in the room, and being busy undertaking her own tasks, that she would not have heard and/or paid attention to what was said.

148. Based on the above, the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant held Colleague M’s hands in his hands without her consent and asked, ‘if I were to kiss you right now, would I get into trouble?’ or words to that effect.

149. The Panel noted that at 4b it was being asked to find proved that the Registrant rubbed Colleague M’s arm without her consent. The Panel took into account that Colleague E is the only witness who mentions this. The Panel considered that Colleague M would be best placed to recall where the Registrant touched her given that she was the recipient of the non-consensual touching. Given that Colleague E was not directly positioned next to the Registrant and Colleague M when this incident occurred, it is entirely plausible that she could have been mistaken about the arm rubbing.

150. The Panel concluded that on the balance of probabilities it was not satisfied that the Registrant had rubbed Colleague M’s arm without her consent.

Particular 7 – Found Proved, save that 4b and 6b were excluded from its consideration.

7. Your conduct at particulars 1 and/or 2a) and/or 2b) and/or 2c) and/or 3a) and/or 3b) and/or 3c) and/or 3d) and/or 3e) and/or 4a) and/or 4b) and/or 4c) and/or 4d) and/or 4e) and/or 4f) and/or 4g) and/or 5a) and/or 5b) and/or 5c) and/or 6a) and/or 6b) and/or 6c) above was:

a) Unprofessional; and/or

b) Sexual in nature and/or sexually motivated.

151. The HCPC submitted that whilst the Particulars are broken down to allow for the Panel to make individual findings as to the exact substance of what happened in each incident, for the purposes of considering Particular 7, the Panel were invited to consider each event as a whole. The HCPC submitted that it would be artificial to consider each sub-particular in isolation when considering the unprofessional and/or sexualised nature because each incident occurred as a single, overarching event.

152. The Panel accepted the HCPC submission, and as it had already noted in relation to the earlier factual Particulars, having regard to the evidence before it, the alleged conduct at each Particular was said to be part of one incident and therefore the Panel agreed that it would be artificial to consider each part of each Particular in isolation as that would not capture the mischief pleaded.

‘Unprofessional’

153. The Panel considered each Particular in turn, as set out below, when considering whether the conduct was unprofessional. In reaching its decision it had regard to the ordinary meaning of the word and took into account the Hospital Disciplinary Policy and Procedure which is included in the bundle. This sets out the Core Principles of NHS Wales and includes:

- We work in partnership and as a team;

- We value all who work for the NHS.

154. Whilst it is the Panel’s decision as to whether the conduct was unprofessional, it did have regard to the evidence of each of the witnesses, who described the conduct as not being professional and/or inappropriate.

Particular 1

155. The Panel considered that the conduct crossed professional boundaries and was disrespectful to Colleague C. There was no reason for the Registrant to do this, and Colleague C had not consented. The incident occurred at work in the Registrant’s capacity as a Band 7 ODP. He had not met Colleague C before and he was significantly senior to her. The incident took place in front of two other colleagues who were seniors/managers. The Panel considered that the conduct goes against valuing and respecting colleagues. The Panel considered that pulling Colleague C’s drawstring of their scrub trousers open without her consent was unprofessional.

Particular 2

156. The Panel considered that placing hands near a colleague’s bottom and making personal comments about a colleague’s intimate body parts, whilst holding a block needle, is clearly unprofessional. The behaviour was disrespectful to Colleague M and devalued her, in front of a Service User, whilst she was undertaking her professional ODP role. This conduct was not conducive to working in partnership and as a team. The conduct is exacerbated by the fact that the Registrant was Colleague M’s manager, and she had called upon him that day to support her with the theatre.

Particular 3

157. The Panel considered that unzipping a junior colleagues coat and touching and rubbing their body is clearly unprofessional. It was unwarranted, nonconsensual physical contact. On the evidence the Panel found proved it was without warning and with no prior conversation. The conduct crossed personal boundaries and was not respectful of Colleague M’s personal space. It took place in front of other colleagues and was not indictive of working in partnership.

Particular 4

158. The Panel considered physically pushing a colleague down, so that she is bent over a table and unable to get up, is unprofessional. There was no professional reason for doing so and it was not relevant for the purpose of demonstrating how to set the table up. The conduct involved non-consensual touching of Colleague B, a junior colleague, and was performed in front of other colleagues thus undermining Colleague B, who described feeling upset and humiliated. The Registrant’s conduct did not show respect or value for Colleague B and was not indicative of working in partnership with the team.

Particular 5

159. The Panel considered that touching a work colleague intimately on the face, whilst also telling them they are beautiful, is unprofessional. The Registrant was Colleague M’s manager, and his workplace conduct crossed professional boundaries and invaded Colleague M’s personal space. It also impacted on her well-being and is not conducive to working in partnership with colleagues.

Particular 6

160. The Panel considered that there was no professional or clinical reason to hold Colleague M’s hands whilst making comments about kissing her. The Registrant had not been engaged in shared work with Colleague M, and he specifically sought her out. Colleague M felt victimised by the Registrant. The Panel considered that his behaviour was not in keeping with valuing colleagues and treating them with respect.

‘Sexual in Nature’

161. The Panel considered each Particular in turn, as set out below, when considering whether the conduct was sexual in nature. In doing so, it had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ dated August 2025. The Panel took into account that when considering whether conduct is sexual in nature, it does not need to make a finding on what the Registrant’s state of mind was, only whether the conduct was, in itself, sexual in nature. The Panel had careful regard to the test used in the criminal offence of sexual assault, for instance, whether the conduct was:

(a) an act which was, whatever the circumstances, sexual;

(b) an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual.

Particular 1

162. The Panel considered that the conduct was an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual. The Panel took into account that there was no clinical reason to pull the drawstring on Colleague C’s scrubs, and it was not consented to. The drawstring is responsible for holding the scrub trousers in place. Pulling the trousers’ drawstring could have caused Colleague C’s trousers to fall down, exposing the lower area of her body including her bottom and pelvic area which are sexual areas of the body.

Particular 2

163. The Panel considered that the conduct was an act which was, whatever the circumstances, sexual. The Panel considered that the bottom is an overtly sexual part of a person’s anatomy, and to be referencing its size and shape, and suggesting putting something in it, whilst Colleague M was bent over, is overtly sexualised language.

Particular 3

164. The Panel considered the conduct was an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual.

165. The Panel took into account that there was no clinical justification or consent for the actions towards Colleague M. The conduct came out of the blue and was unwarranted. The Panel considered that Colleague M had perceived the conduct to be sexual, and following this incident had taken a colleague with her when she spoke to the Registrant as she was so uncomfortable about his actions. The Panel considered that unzipping an article of someone’s clothing and placing hands inside is in and of itself intimate and indicative of sexualisation. Rubbing Colleague M’s body, including her stomach and back and all the way up to the bottom of her bra/breasts in non-clinically justified circumstances is overtly sexual in nature.

Particular 4

166. The Panel considered the action of pushing Colleague B, a junior, female colleague, so that she was bent over onto the table, then standing behind her close to her bottom, and touching her was inherently sexual in nature. It was not clinically justified behaviour and was not relevant to the table demonstration. Whilst the Panel had not found that the Registrant made sexual gestures, the action itself has sexual connotations because of the position he had Colleague B in.

Particular 5

167. The Panel considered that this conduct was an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual. The act of stroking a person’s face is in and of itself intimate, particularly when accompanied by commenting on someone’s beauty. The Panel had regard to Colleague M’s evidence when she described this as an action she would expect of an intimate partner. The conduct took place within the work setting and was unwanted by Colleague M. There was no clinical justification for it.

Particular 6

168. The Panel considered that this conduct was an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual. The Panel considered that holding a colleague’s hands, particularly a junior female colleague, whilst making comments about kissing them, is sexual. Whilst kissing is not always sexual, and can be a way of greeting people, the Panel considered that in these circumstances it was sexual in nature. There was no clinical justification for saying it, and the Registrant had deliberately sought Colleague M out to be in close proximity to her.

‘Sexual Motivation’

167. In making a decision as to whether the conduct was sexually motivated, the Panel had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’. It took into account that the state of a person’s mind is not something that can be proved by direct observation. A person's state of mind can only be proved by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence. The Panel was aware that it must decide whether the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

168. In considering sexual motivation, the Panel had regard to its earlier decision that the evidence is cross-admissible and therefore it considered the evidence holistically.

169. The Panel found that in respect of each finding it had made in relation to facts 1-6, the Registrant’s conduct was against much more junior and solely female members of staff.

170. The Panel took into account that the Registrant is of good character and has provided some character references. However, the Panel noted that none of the references speak directly to the facts in question or confirm that they have knowledge of these proceedings.

171. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s written evidence in relation to the culture and Hospital environment. It noted mention in the evidence of the use of ‘banter’ and ‘humour’. However, the Panel did not perceive any of the conduct found proved to be banter or humorous. It was clear from the evidence that the Registrant had overstepped boundaries and caused each individual complainant a level of distress. The Panel heard no evidence from those who witnessed the conduct that they had found the Registrant’s behaviour amusing.

172. The Registrant indicated in his written evidence that some of his conduct towards Colleague M was done in a supportive manner, albeit he now accepts that it was not appropriate. The Panel did not find any of the Registrant’s conduct to be supportive given the clear overstepping of boundaries and the use of non-consensual physical touch which made Colleague M feel victimised.

173. The Panel also took into account that the majority of the conduct was done with witnesses present. It noted that these witnesses were, in the majority of the factual particulars, all female and junior to the Registrant. The Panel found this to be indicative of the Registrant asserting his dominance, knowing that it is notoriously more difficult to report a senior colleague within a workplace.

174. In relation to Particular 1 the Panel considered this to be overtly sexual given that it would have resulted in the exposure of Colleague C’s intimate lower body parts. It was not clinically justified or appropriate, was directed towards a junior female colleague he had not met before and the evidence does not point to there being any other plausible explanation for it.

175. In relation to Particular 2, the Panel considered this conduct to be overtly sexual given it related to Colleague B’s bottom. The Panel considered that there was no clinical or indeed any other reason to make the comments, which Colleague M did not consent to. The Panel considered that this was not banter because it involved very personal comments being made about Colleague M’s bottom and it was in front of a Service User, which would have put Colleague M in a difficult professional position.

176. In relation to Particular 3, the Panel had found this conduct to be sexual in nature given the intimacy of unzipping the jacket and rubbing Colleague M’s body, including to the bottom of her bra. There was no justification for and no consent to the behaviour. Whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant suggested he could have been comforting Colleague M [redacted], the Panel did not accept such conduct was ‘comforting’. The conduct clearly crossed the line and goes much further than what could be considered a reassuring pat on the arm or shoulder, which might be appropriate in certain instances.

177. In relation to Particular 4, the Panel considered this was overtly sexual in nature given the connotations to a sexual position. Colleague B was a junior, female colleague and the Registrant exhibited dominance over her by preventing her from standing up. There was no justification for his conduct and Colleague B was not consenting. The Registrant’s actions were wholly unnecessary and unjustified as he was present to show the staff how to assemble the table.

178. In relation to Particular 5, the Panel considered this to be overtly sexual in nature given the intimacy of stoking a person’s face whilst commenting on their beauty. There was no justification for the conduct, and it was unwanted by Colleague M. Whilst the Registrant states that it was his way of letting her know that she was doing a good job in a department that she didn’t feel comfortable working in, the Panel did not accept this was his intention. The Panel considered that this was not a plausible explanation as telling someone they are doing a good job does not require nonconsensual intimate touching or making comments on their appearance.

179. In relation to Particular 6, the Panel had already found the conduct to be sexual in nature given the Registrant was holding Colleague M’s hands whilst commenting about kissing her. The behaviour was not justified and was not consented to by Colleague M. Whilst there was a suggestion by the Registrant that he was saying this as he was pleased with the work she had done cleaning the equipment, the Panel did not accept that this was his intention. The Panel noted that this was the fourth incident, over a period of a few months, where the Registrant had touched Colleague M without her consent and/or commented on her physical appearance. Colleague M was a junior female staff member who was directly line managed by the Registrant. Taking everything into account, the Panel did not accept that this conduct was a way for the Registrant to thank her.

180. In conclusion, the Panel found that all the conduct outlined in the Particulars of the Allegation was done in pursuit of sexual gratification and were therefore sexually motivated. Whilst the Panel took into account that four of the Particulars related to Colleague M, it did not find that this was done in pursuit of a relationship. There was nothing adduced within the HCPC evidence to suggest that the Registrant was in pursuit of a relationship with Colleague M, or any of the other colleagues.

Decision on Grounds

181. Ms Steels referred the Panel to the case summary which contained some written submissions in relation to misconduct and impairment. Ms Steels supplemented these with oral submissions in light of the Panel’s findings to date.

182. Ms Steels submitted that the Panel should find that the conduct in all the facts found proved amounts to misconduct.

183. Ms Steels submitted that the Registrant has acted in such a way which fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect. She submitted that the Registrant has breached the following standards set out in the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics (“the Standards”) (as were in force at the time of the conduct):

• 9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession;

• 1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.

184. Ms Steels submitted that 1.7 should apply equally to colleagues, notwithstanding the fact that ‘colleagues’ is not expressly stated.

185. Ms Steels submitted the Registrant’s conduct as found proved was serious. On multiple occasions he touched, gestured and/or spoke to colleagues in an inappropriate, sexualised way. This was in front of other colleagues, creating an atmosphere of discomfort and concern, and on occasion also in front of a patient. The Panel has found this conduct to be both sexual in nature and sexually motivated.

186. Ms Steels submitted that harm was caused to the individuals, and the impact of the Registrant’s actions is evidenced within their statements. [redacted]. Ms Steels referred the Panel to the oral evidence of both Colleagues M and B who had given further details about the impact the Registrant’s behaviour had on them.

187. Ms Steels submitted that the Registrant’s conduct and the harm it caused the complainants would plainly prevent individuals from working effectively with the Registrant, potentially causing risk of harm to patients, and it created a workplace environment which felt unsafe.

188. Ms Steels submitted that the conduct was repeated, sexualised, and was aimed at more junior female colleagues. Ms Steels submitted that such conduct can properly be regarded as serious and unprofessional, demonstrating a disregard and disrespect for colleagues and disregard for the potential impact on patients. Ms Steels submitted that the seriousness of the conduct is compounded by the Registrant’s role as Band 7 lead ODP. He was in a managerial position and a position of power over the complainant witnesses. Ms Steels submitted that this power imbalance exacerbates the severity and inappropriateness of the conduct.

189. Ms Steels invited the Panel to conclude that the conduct found proved amounts to misconduct.

190. The Registrant was not present and did not make specific reference to the statutory grounds or impairment within his written documentation included within the bundle. However, the Panel did take the evidence provided by the Registrant into account so far as it was relevant to its decision. The Registrant also provided within the bundle, three testimonials, which the Panel also had regard to.

191. In relation to misconduct, the Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Roylance v GMC (no.2) [2000] AC 311 and to the Standards. The Legal Assessor advised that there was no settled definition of misconduct, and it was for the Panel to say in the circumstances of the case whether the behaviour crossed the threshold properly to be categorised as misconduct. The Panel could approach the question by deciding whether an act or omission on the part of the Registrant represented a serious falling short of the standards to be expected of a HCPC registrant. However, it is important to note that not every omission or wrongdoing necessarily constitutes misconduct.

Panel Decision

192. The Panel at all times kept in mind the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public which includes protecting service users, promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

193. The Panel took into account the Standards which were in place at the time of the incidents. The Panel bore in mind that a departure from the Standards alone does not necessarily constitute misconduct.

194. Based on all the information before it, the Panel found the Registrant’s behaviour in relation to the facts found proved did amount to serious professional misconduct.

195. The Panel took into account that the actions of the Registrant were not related to his ODP competence, but they did take place within his place of work, whilst on shift at the Hospital. His actions, across all the facts found proved, were sexual in nature and sexually motivated and occurred over a period of time. His actions involved multiple colleagues all of whom were female and junior to the Registrant.

196. The Panel had careful regard to the Standards and did find that the Registrant’s conduct was in breach of the following Standards:

• 9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession;

• 1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional;

• 6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible;

• 6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

197. Whilst the Panel accepted that 1.7 does not refer to colleagues, the sentiment within that is equally applicable to colleagues, as effective teamwork relies on professional relationships between colleagues. Further, in relation to the facts found at Particular 2, the Registrant did behave unprofessionally in front of the Service User, who was in the anaesthetic room waiting to go for an operation.

198. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct was very serious and was a pattern of behaviour. It was sexually motivated conduct and involved nonconsensual touching, gesturing and making inappropriate comments to female junior colleagues. The Panel found that the Registrant had taken advantage of the power imbalance that was present in targeting the more junior female staff, with the knowledge that it is notoriously more difficult to report a senior colleague. The Registrant’s conduct caused the complainants harm. They felt distressed and in relation to Colleagues M and B it impacted on their sense of health, safety, and well-being within their place of work.

199. The Panel took into account that within healthcare, effective team working is vital for the health and safety of service users and their carers. As well as causing or risking harm to the team members affected, breaches of professional boundaries between colleagues can undermine effective team working, risking harm to the people that the team exists to serve. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct and the harm caused to his colleagues undermined that team support which should be present. In turn, this could have adversely affected their clinical performance and thus impacted on patient safety.

200. The Panel found that the Registrant’s actions were fundamentally inconsistent with what is expected of a registered ODP, falling far below the Standards expected.

201. For the above reasons, the Panel concluded that the conduct found proved individually and collectively does amount to serious professional misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

202. Ms Steels submitted that the Registrant is currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

203. Ms Steels submitted that the Registrant’s conduct created a culture which was uncomfortable for his colleagues and that the impact put patients at risk of harm.

204. Ms Steels submitted that the conduct would plainly bring the profession into disrepute and breached the fundamental tenets of the profession. Ms Steels submitted that there is an ongoing risk of repetition due to the limited engagement, insight, remediation and reflection of the Registrant.

205. Ms Steels submitted that whilst the Registrant had indicated within his written document that he was sorry to Colleague M, this does not demonstrate reflection or insight as to why what he did was wrong. Nor has he offered any reflection on why his conduct would diminish public trust.

206. Ms Steels submitted that a fundamental failure to behave professionally with colleagues which amounts to sexual misconduct is hard to remediate. She submitted that his behaviour is demonstrative of an attitudinal failing. It is aggravated by its repetitious nature, and because the Registrant was in a position of power.

207. Ms Steels submitted that although the Registrant is entitled to deny charges against him, the Panel needs to consider the impact of that on insight. She submitted that the Registrant has not even engaged with demonstrating a theoretical response as to why professional boundaries are important in health care.

208. Ms Steels submitted that the character references should be afforded little weight as it is not apparent that the authors are aware of the allegations. Even if the Registrant is clinically able, this does not detract from his proven misconduct.

209. Ms Steels submitted that the Registrant held a position of trust, and was responsible for patients needing care, and who would be unconscious if undergoing general anaesthetic. Ms Steels submitted that the confidence of patients would be negatively impacted knowing the conduct found proved against the Registrant. Ms Steels submitted that the Allegation (as found proved) is so serious that finding that the Registrant’s behaviour does not amount to impairment would undermine confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

210. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to impairment. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that it should have regard to both the personal and public components and keep in mind the wider public interest. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ dated August 2025, and ‘Professional Boundaries’ dated September 2024. The Panel was referred to the cases of, CHRE v (1) NMC & (2) Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin), and PSA v HCPC & Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319.

211. The Panel considered the Registrant’s current fitness to practise firstly from the personal perspective and then from the wider public perspective. The Panel had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on impairment and professional boundaries.

212. In relation to the personal component, in accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note (Impairment), the Panel considered whether the conduct in this case is easily remediable, whether it has been remedied and whether it was highly unlikely to be repeated.

213. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that raise questions of character, such as sexual motivation, may be harder to remediate. The Panel had regard to its findings that the Registrant’s sexually motivated conduct was repeated and involved multiple colleagues. The Panel had also found that the Registrant had taken advantage of the power imbalance that was present by targeting junior female colleagues. The Panel considered that this repeated conduct, with an apparent disregard for the impact on his colleagues, suggested a deep-seated attitudinal issue. The suggestion that this is a deep-seated attitudinal issue was also borne out within the evidence with various references made such as ‘that’s just Archie’ and ‘he’s a flirty gentleman’.

214. Given the serious nature of the sexually motivated conduct and the apparent attitudinal issues, the Panel considered that it would be difficult for the Registrant to remediate, although not unachievable. The Panel did acknowledge that the Registrant has had a lengthy career as an ODP and was of previous good character. The Panel considered that in order to remediate the Registrant would need to show fully developed insight, reflection and remediation. This would need to include an understanding of how and why the misconduct occurred and evidence to demonstrate what steps the Registrant would take to avoid a repetition of the sexually motivated misconduct reoccurring. The Panel would also need to see an understanding from the Registrant of the impact the misconduct had on the complainants as well as the ODP profession. Further, the Registrant would need to undertake, and put into practice, relevant training, specifically targeted to address the sexually motivated findings made.

215. The Panel next had regard to whether the Registrant’s sexually motived misconduct has been remedied. The Panel took into account the documentary evidence provided by the Registrant in advance of the hearing.

216. In relation to insight, the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant did admit to Particular 5 and stated that at the time he had no intention of making Colleague M feel uncomfortable and that he is sorry if he did so. However, the Panel considered this to be a superficial response which did not engage with the full weight of what was alleged against him.

217. Whilst the Panel took into account that the sexual motivation in this case was pleaded as a secondary allegation, the Panel considered that the primary facts found proved, in relation to the non-consensual touching of colleagues with no apparent justification or necessity, were by their nature inherently inappropriate. Given that the majority of the incidents found proved were witnessed by other colleagues, who generally provided consistent evidence, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s denial of the primary facts showed a lack of insight. The Registrant’s denials included denying that some of these incidents took place at all and denying one Particular of the Allegation which he had previously admitted to within the Hospital investigation. He inferred that the witnesses, most of whom are registered professionals, were not reliable, stating that ‘memories can differ with hindsight and pressure from colleagues!’ However, he did not provide an account to explain why the witness evidence could not be relied on.

218. The Registrant was an experienced ODP, and he knew or should have known, the importance of treating colleagues with respect and the requirements to maintain professional boundaries. It is possible, even when denying an Allegation, for a Registrant to evidence what could (and should) have been done differently. However, the Panel found the Registrant’s written evidence did not address this at all. Whilst he offers an apology of sorts to Colleague M, it lacks sincerity and depth. His evidence does not demonstrate any proper reflection or demonstrate a genuine understanding of the impact of his actions on others, and the ODP profession. The only information about impact is relating to that which the proceedings have had on him personally, which is not in this Panel’s view evidence of insight.

219. The written information from him does not seem to have developed from the time of his suspension from the Hospital to his most recent correspondence with the HCPC.

220. In finding a lack of insight, the Panel also factored in the Registrant’s failure to fully engage with the regulatory process, in that he had failed to attend the hearing and there had been only limited correspondence from him to the HCPC since 2023.

221. The Panel had regard to the information within the bundle as to whether there was any evidence of remediation. The Registrant has not provided any evidence of whether he is currently working in paid or unpaid employment. He states that he is retired from the ODP profession and has no wish to return. The Panel noted that the Registrant has provided no evidence that he has undertaken any training courses at all since these incidents arose in 2021. Overall, the Panel found no evidence of remediation.

222. The Panel considered whether the misconduct was likely to be repeated by the Registrant. The Panel took into account all it had read and heard about the misconduct. The facts found in relation to the sexually motivated conduct show that the Registrant had conducted a pattern of behaviour, across a period of time, against multiple, junior, female staff. Given its finding that the Registrant has shown no insight and has not remediated, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition remains. The Panel found that given the lack of insight, there remains a potential for the Registrant to behave in a sexually motivated manner again if he found himself in a similar position, which in turn could have a detrimental impact on the safety and well-being of his colleagues.

223. The Panel decided that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the grounds of his misconduct.

224. The Panel next considered whether a finding of current impairment was necessary in the public interest. The Panel was mindful that the public interest encompassed not only public protection but also the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. It took into account the guidance in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) at paragraph 74:- ‘In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.’

225. The Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant. The Panel considered whether:

a) The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm;

b) The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute;

c) The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

226. In relation to a), the Panel determined that the Registrant had placed his colleagues at unwarranted risk of harm, by acting in the way that he did. The Panel heard evidence from Colleagues M and B about the impact the Registrant’s behaviour had on them. [redacted].

227. In relation to service users, whilst there is no evidence of actual harm, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct could have caused harm. His inappropriate and sexually motivated conduct in relation to Particular 2 was done in front of a vulnerable Service User who was about to be anaesthetised for an operation. Witnessing such conduct from the professional who is there to provide for your health and safety whilst in hospital is likely to impact on service user confidence. Further, the Panel considered that it is essential for good and safe service user care that an ODP works effectively with other colleagues. Having heard from Colleagues M and B about the emotional impact the conduct had on them within the work environment, the Panel considered that the sexual misconduct in this case was capable of distracting the complainants whilst undertaking their roles and thereby imperilling service user safety.

228. In relation to b), that is the question of whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined he had. A significant aspect of public interest is upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as not to bring the profession into disrepute. The role of the HCPC Standards is to set out in general terms how registrants are expected to behave and outline what the public should expect from their health and care professional. In breaching the HCPC Standards, as already set out within this decision, the Registrant has brought the profession into disrepute.

229. The Panel then considered c), being whether the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. The Panel took into account that it is essential to the effective delivery of the service that the public, which includes colleagues, can trust ODPs to act within professional boundaries and comply with the Standards which are fundamentally in place to ensure patient and colleague safety. In acting as he did, towards junior female colleagues, the Registrant abused his senior position and failed to adhere to professional boundaries. The Panel considered that the conduct, as described, demonstrated a serious breach of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

230. The Panel asked itself, given the nature of the Allegation and the facts found proved, would public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment?

231. Based on its findings in relation to the unwarranted risk of harm, the bringing the profession into disrepute and the breaching of the fundamental tenets of the profession, the Panel concluded that public confidence would be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment. The Panel considered that not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the misconduct would seriously undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would fail to uphold and declare proper standards.

232. The Panel therefore decided on the public component of impairment that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction

233. Ms Steels referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (“the Policy”) (2019).

234. Ms Steels drew the Panel’s attention to the paragraphs in the Policy pertaining to seriousness and also the HCPTS Practice Note on Professional Boundaries. She submitted that the misconduct involved a power imbalance as the Registrant had a managerial role and the complainants were all junior to him. Further, the Registrant specifically targeted junior female colleagues which is predatory behaviour. There was also a pattern of behaviour from Autumn 2020 to March 2021.

235. Ms Steels submitted that in relation to aggravating factors the Panel should consider the following:

• The misconduct was a pattern of behaviour that occurred on multiple occasions and only came to end as a result of the Hospital investigation;

• The Registrant lacks insight and remorse and has shown no genuine reflection. He has only offered a superficial apology to Colleague M and has undertaken no remediation;

• The Registrant’s conduct caused harm to his colleagues and risked causing harm to patient safety due to the adverse effect on the working environment; and

• The Registrant took advantage of the power imbalance in targeting his misconduct towards and in front of junior female colleagues.

236. Ms Steels submitted that there was little in the way of mitigation, other than the Registrant is previously of good character.

237. Ms Steels reminded the Panel that it should work through the sanctions starting with the least restrictive until it reached a sanction that was sufficient to protect the public and public interest, having due regard to the overarching objective.

238. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred it to the Policy, which states that any sanction must be proportionate, is not intended to be punitive and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system and declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its primary function at this stage is to protect the public, while deciding what, if any, sanction is proportionate, taking into account the wider public interest and the interests of the Registrant.

239. The Legal Assessor also referred to the following HCPTS Practice Notes:

• Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind;

• Drafting fitness to practise decisions;

• Professional Boundaries; and

• Impairment.

240. In respect of the Panel’s findings at misconduct and impairment, the Legal Assessor drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs on seriousness, starting at page 16 of the Policy.

Panel decision

241. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.

242. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The sexually motivated misconduct was not a single act, it was persistent and repeated, until such time that the Hospital investigation commenced;

• The misconduct was an abuse of power, as the Registrant was in a leadership role and directly line managed some of the complainants. The Registrant targeted his misconduct towards, and in front of, junior female colleagues which was predatory behaviour;

• The Registrant lacks insight, has expressed only superficial remorse in relation to Colleague M. The Registrant lacks a genuine recognition of the concerns raised about his fitness to practise, and has failed to take responsibility for the impact of his actions;

• The Registrant has not undertaken any remediation. Even though he denied the Allegation, it is possible for Registrant’s to undertake relevant training courses and provide theoretical consideration of the issues raised within the Allegation. The Registrant has not done this;

• The Registrant has failed to fully engage with the HCPC by not attending the hearing to respond to the serious Allegation that was raised against him; and

• There was direct harm to Colleagues M and B, both of whom provided evidence that the Registrant’s misconduct impacted on them in the work environment. Given that the misconduct was capable of distracting the complainants whilst undertaking their roles, this thereby imperilled service user safety.

243. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• There have been no previous regulatory matters raised against the Registrant who had been in ODP practice for approximately twenty-eight years, at the time of the Allegation; and

• The Registrant made an admission to Particular 5.

244. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It took into account that the final sanction should be a proportionate approach and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public.

245. Due to the serious nature of the misconduct found in this case (a pattern of sexually motivated conduct) the Panel considered that taking no further action or mediation would not be appropriate.

246. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would be appropriate. The Panel considered that a Caution Order would not be in accordance with the Policy which states: ‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which: the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature.’ The Registrant’s misconduct was not isolated, it was not limited, nor was it relatively minor in nature. It involved repeated sexually motivated conduct towards junior female colleagues. The Policy also states that a Caution Order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which there is: ‘a low risk of repetition; the registrant has shown good insight, and the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation’. The Panel considered its earlier decision on impairment and kept in mind it had not found a low risk of repetition, it had not found the Registrant to have good insight, nor did it find that he had remediated. In the circumstances, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct was too serious for a Caution Order, and such a disposal would be contrary to the Policy.

247. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel took into account the Policy which states that:

‘Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious or persistent failings.

Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving:

• Sexual misconduct

• Abuse of professional position.’

248. The Panel found that the Registrant has not shown insight and that he has not engaged in the fitness to practise hearing process. Further, he has had serious misconduct findings made against him by the Panel, including repeated and persistent sexually motivated behaviour towards junior female staff. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct was not minor, rather that it was particularly serious given the impact it had on colleagues and could have had on service users.

249. The Panel kept in mind its decision on impairment, and that it found that there is a risk that the sexually motivated conduct will be repeated given the lack of insight and remediation. Taking all these factors into account, the Panel found that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be sufficient to address and safeguard members of the public, which includes colleagues, from the risks of the Registrant’s sexually motivated misconduct.

250. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states:

‘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.’

251. The Panel was mindful that it had found that the facts proved represent a serious breach of the Standards. It had also found a lack of insight from the Registrant in relation to his misconduct and found a risk of repetition remains. Whilst the Panel had concluded that the misconduct would not be unachievable to remediate, it had no evidence from the Registrant that he understood how and why the misconduct occurred and no evidence to demonstrate what steps the Registrant would take to avoid a repetition of the misconduct. The Panel had no evidence from the Registrant relating to the impact the misconduct had on the complainants or the ODP profession, and no evidence that he has undertaken any relevant training. In terms of any insight, the written information from him does not seem to have developed from the time of his suspension from the Hospital. He has expressly indicated to the HCPC on a number of occasions that he does not wish to be registered as an ODP and he has not engaged in the fitness to practise hearing process. The Panel considered that all these factors together indicate that the Registrant is unlikely to be able to resolve or remedy his deep-seated attitudinal failings.

252. The Panel reminded itself, as per paragraphs 76 – 77 of the Policy, that sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. The Panel found the sexual misconduct in this case was very serious as the Registrant was in a leadership role and he targeted his misconduct towards and in front of junior female colleagues, which was an abuse of his position of power and predatory in nature.

253. The Panel took into account that ODPs hold positions of trust and the role often requires them to engage with vulnerable people who are about to undergo surgery under anaesthetic. Breaches of professional boundaries, such as those found in this case, risk seriously undermining the public trust and confidence in ODPs. Within healthcare, effective team working is also vital for the health and safety of service users and their carers. As well as causing harm to the colleagues affected, the Registrant’s breaches of professional boundaries also undermined effective team working, risking harm to the people that the team existed to serve.

254. The Panel considered that the misconduct in this case was such that the requirements of public protection and the wider public interest would not be adequately served by imposing a Suspension Order.

255. The Panel, having decided a Suspension Order did not protect the public nor meet the wider public interest, decided that the proportionate order was a Striking Off Order.

256. The Panel took into account the Sanctions Policy and noted that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort and should be reserved for those categories of cases where there is no other means of protecting the public and the wider public interest. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s case falls into this category because of the serious and persistent nature of the sexually motivated conduct towards and in front of junior female colleagues, and which was indicative of the Registrant asserting his dominance, knowing that it is notoriously more difficult to report a senior colleague within a workplace. These factors combined with the Registrant’s lack of insight, the risk of repetition and the apparent unwillingness to resolve matters led the Panel to conclude that any lesser sanction would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession and would be insufficient to protect the public.

257. The Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a Striking Off Order may have upon the Registrant but concluded that these considerations are significantly outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to public protection and the wider public interest. It did note that the Registrant had indicated that he had retired and had no intention of returning to ODP practice. However, without an Order in place, the Registrant would be free to change his mind and return to practice which would not be in the public interest.

258. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Archie Cameron from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order Application

259. Prior to hearing submissions on sanction, the Panel invited Ms Steels to address them not only on sanction but also as to whether the HCPC would be seeking an Interim Order in the event of a restrictive sanction being imposed. The Panel informed Ms Steels that it would deal with sanction and Interim Order sequentially in its decision making and if a restrictive sanction was not imposed then it would not move on to consider making an Interim Order.

260. Ms Steels submitted that if the Panel made a restrictive sanction, it should also impose an Interim Order to cover the appeal period, for 18 months. Ms Steels submitted that if a substantive Conditions of Practice Order is imposed then the Interim Order should be for Interim Conditions of Practice to mirror the substantive order. She submitted that if a Suspension Order or Strike Off is imposed, then the Panel should impose an Interim Suspension Order.

261. Ms Steels submitted that an Interim Order is necessary given the findings made by the Panel at the impairment stage. She submitted that there remains a risk to public protection and that public confidence would be undermined if an Interim Order were not in place.

262. In relation to the Interim Order, the Legal Assessor referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, and the requirement for the Interim Order to be necessary for public protection or otherwise in the public interest.

263. Following its decision on sanction, the Panel went on to consider whether an Interim Order was necessary to cover the appeal period. However, it noted that before it could proceed to consider whether an Interim Order is necessary, it had to consider whether to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Given that it had not heard submissions from Ms Steels on this point, nor received legal advice, it decided to hand down its decision on sanction before inviting further submissions.

264. Ms Steels submitted that prior to asking the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence to hear an application for an Interim Order, the onus is on the HCPC to show that the Registrant has been given notice that an application for an Interim Order to cover the appeal period may be made. Ms Steels submitted that such notice is usually contained within the Notice of Final Hearing letter. However, due to an oversight, the Notice of Final Hearing letter sent to the Registrant on 08 July 2025 did not contain this information and therefore he had not been made aware.

265. Ms Steels asked the Panel to stand the case down until the following day (14 November 2025) to allow the HCPC to service notice of the application for an Interim Order on the Registrant.

266. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to Article 31 (15) and the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, paragraph 52. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it should have careful regard to fairness and to the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest.

267. The Panel agreed to adjourn the hearing until 14 November 2025 to allow the Registrant to be notified of the Interim Order application and to give him an opportunity to attend the hearing or make submissions should he so wish.

268. On 14 November 2025, Ms Steels made an application for an Interim Order and invited the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She referred the Panel to the email that was sent to the Registrant from Blake Morgan LLP at 12:37 on 13 November 2025. This states as follows:

‘Further to our previous correspondence regarding the above matter, please be informed that the Panel has found proved most of the Facts, has also found proved your misconduct and that your fitness to practise is impaired and has imposed a striking off order upon your registration.

The HCPC now intends to apply for an interim suspension order to be imposed upon your registration during the appeal period (i.e.28 days) under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001.

This application will be made tomorrow at 10:00 and you are given the opportunity to make written submissions about it and/or attend the hearing if you want to tomorrow at 12:00.

Please confirm whether you would like to attend the hearing to give oral submissions tomorrow at 12:00 and/or whether you would like to make written submissions.’

269. Ms Steels submitted that the email is evidence that the Registrant has been afforded an opportunity of appearing before the Panel and being heard on the question of whether an Interim Order should be made.

270. Ms Steels referred the Panel to the Registrant’s reply to the email that was received 13:11 on 13 November 2025. This states:

‘That saddens me immensely but I won’t be contesting it.’

271. Ms Steels submitted that the Panel should proceed in the Registrant’s absence as he had waived his right to be present at the hearing and has been clear and consistent within all his recent correspondence that he does not wish to attend or engage in the hearing. Ms Steels submitted that in the context of the Registrant’s repeated indications that he does not want to attend, an adjournment would not secure his attendance at a future date. Ms Steels submitted that it is in the interests of the public to proceed with the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence.

272. Ms Steels referred the Panel to her previous submissions as to the necessity for an Interim Order.

273. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Panel Decision

274. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been given notice of the application for an Interim Order and had therefore been given an opportunity to attend in accordance with Article 31 (15). The Panel took into account that there is no minimum notice requirement for service of notice. It was satisfied that whilst it was short notice, this did not create unfairness to the Registrant as he was fully aware that the substantive hearing was listed up to and including Friday 14 November 2025. The email sent on 13 November 2025, provided him with a further opportunity to attend and/or make written submissions.

275. The Panel considered that the overriding statutory objective of protecting the public and the wider public interest weighed heavily in favour of the application proceeding in the Registrant’s absence, particularly given its finding that the Registrant remains impaired on both components.

276. The Panel could see no reason to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the Registrant to participate on a later date because there was no indication that he would do so. The Panel considered that his email is clear that he does not wish to contest the Interim Order. He has also been clear and consistent throughout his correspondence that he does not want to attend and engage with the hearing.

277. The Panel took into account the fact that it had identified there to be a continuing risk to the public if the Registrant were allowed to practise without restriction and decided it was clearly in the public interest to consider whether to make an Interim Order today, even if that meant it was conducted in the absence of the Registrant.

278. The Panel therefore decided that it was fair and appropriate to proceed with the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence.

279. The Panel made 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. The Panel considered that the Interim Order is necessary in light of the risks to the public and the wider public interest identified in the substantive decision, most significantly, the ongoing risk of the sexual misconduct. The Panel considered 18 months was appropriate and proportionate given the length an appeal may take to be decided by the High Court, if an appeal is made.

280. 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 Archie Cameron

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
20/10/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off