Arthur Martial

Preliminary matters

Part of the hearing in private

1. During the hearing, the Registrant raised matters of his health.

2. The Panel raised the issue of whether these matters should be in private.

3. Ms Sampson, on behalf of the HCPC, did not object. The Registrant agreed.

4. The Panel bore in mind the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

5. The Panel decided that any information relating to the Registrant’s health would be heard in private in order to protect his private life, in accordance with Rule 10(1)(a) of the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Background

6. The Registrant is a registered Physiotherapist. At the time of the Allegations he was employed by Nuffield Health, based in Crawley Fitness and Wellbeing Centre.

7. On 14 April 2023, the HCPC received a referral from Service User A. The allegations raised by Service User A were also reported to Nuffield Health on 14 April 2023 and an investigation commenced. During the investigation it came to light that the Registrant had recorded Service User A’s presenting complaint as right knee instead of right shoulder. Further, it was discovered that the Registrant had not recorded full details of Service User A’s mental health and other personal matters that were disclosed to him during the sessions in the Physiotherapy records. Following an interview with the Registrant, the matter was referred to a disciplinary hearing. The Registrant resigned from his position on 1 June 2023 before the disciplinary hearing was arranged.

8. At a substantive hearing held on 23-26 September 2024, the Panel found that some of the factual particulars were proved and that some of the factual findings constituted misconduct. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components, considering that there was a need to protect the public as well as uphold public confidence in the profession. By way of sanction, the Panel imposed a Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 12 months.

Submissions in respect of today’s review

9. Ms Sampson acknowledged the Registrant’s attendance and written submissions. However, given that the Registrant had not practised over the last year nor had he complied with the conditions, Ms Sampson submitted that his fitness to practise remained impaired. Ms Sampson submitted that there was limited evidence from the Registrant and that little, if anything, had changed since the substantive hearing. The Registrant had not shown insight or provided evidence that he had embedded remedial steps into his practice, nor had he shown how he had kept his skills and knowledge up to date. Ms Sampson submitted that a risk to patients remained in absence of evidence of compliance with the conditions and that public confidence would be undermined if a registrant returned to practise without restriction having not complied with conditions. Ms Sampson reserved her position on sanction until the Registrant addressed the Panel.

10. The Registrant addressed the Panel by way of submissions. He told the Panel that he had been a passionate Physiotherapist for 27 years, having qualified in 1998. He spoke of the impact the allegations and the substantive hearing process had had upon him personally and as a professional [redacted]. He lost his confidence and his belief in his ability to assess people and patients. [redacted]. He told the Panel that at the time of his first meeting with Service User A he had returned to work earlier than expected [redacted], which he understood affected his judgement, and he ignored red flags which should have caused him to insist on a chaperone for Service User A. He acknowledged the impact of his actions on Service User A, acknowledged that he had overstepped the mark, had made a “grave error”, and expressed apology and remorse to the Panel. He recognised that he had become involved in trying to increase her confidence as she was vulnerable [redacted] which contributed to his behaviour with Service User A.

11. The Registrant told the Panel that the substantive hearing process [redacted] and for a significant length of time he was not able to read the decision or the conditions [redacted]. He had only read the conditions because he was told to do so [redacted] about a month prior to today’s hearing, which is when he realised that he had not met the deadlines set out in the conditions.

12. The Registrant told the Panel that he had been undertaking online courses and listening to podcasts in the last year, which is what he enjoyed doing as he was passionate about his career.

13. The Registrant told the Panel that he felt ready to engage with the conditions and stated that he would contact his previous manager at Nuffield and organise some mentoring through her, or from previous colleagues or though his GP. He stated that his mind was clearer and that he was in a good place. He could now see options, whereas before he did not.

14. Ms Sampson, in closing, submitted that taking no further action or imposing a Caution Order was not appropriate for the same reasons as decided by the previous panel. This Panel needed to be confident that the Registrant was willing and able to comply with the Conditions of Practice Order. If the Panel was not so satisfied, Ms Sampson invited to Panel to consider that a Suspension would not serve any useful purpose and she invited the Panel to consider a Striking Off Order as the only appropriate order.

15. The Registrant acknowledged that he was not in the right state of mind to engage with the conditions prior to now and that he had not wanted to talk about them. Having applied for a professional role through an agency some five or six months ago, when the agency asked him about the conditions he disengaged from the application. He told the Panel that having obtained support [redacted], he would now engage with the conditions.

16. The Panel took into account the HCPC bundle and the Registrant’s bundle, which included a reflective piece of writing, as well as character testimonials.

Impairment

17. In undertaking this review, the Panel took into account the documentary evidence, the submissions from both parties, and the Registrant’s oral evidence.

18. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the proper approach it should adopt. The Panel was aware that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Registrant’s fitness to return to practice and considered the HCPTS Practice Notes entitled “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. Only if impairment remained would the Panel then go on to consider what sanction, if any, to impose.

19. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. The Panel took into account all of the submissions, material, and evidence before it.

20. The Panel considered the Registrant’s level of insight. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had effectively been unable to read the conditions of practice until about a month ago. The reason he gave for this was [redacted] read the substantive decision and he only did so about a month ago [redacted]. The Panel listened to the Registrant’s submissions about his thoughts and reflections on his misconduct. The Panel also read his short reflective written piece. The Registrant informed the Panel that he continued to work as a Physiotherapist in a voluntary capacity [redacted] football team. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s insight was still developing and was surprised that the Registrant was working clinically on a voluntary basis without addressing the conditions. The Registrant also detailed that he could not find a relevant course on inappropriate boundaries, which was an anomaly given the importance of this theme in regulatory matters. While he was able to articulate the impact of his actions on Service User A and express his thoughts about the cause of his behaviour and how to prevent it from recurring, the Panel felt that these oral reflections lacked detail and depth, as did the written piece.

21. Further, the Panel decided that the journey the Registrant was on in terms of his insight was hampered by essentially ignoring the Conditions of Practice Order, for the reasons he gave, and being unable to read it until a month ago. He has not complied with the conditions, which are applicable regardless of whether he obtained professional employment. Further, the Registrant had not obtained any employment in the past year which would have given him the opportunity to show that he was practising in accordance with the conditions and addressing the concerns as envisaged by them.

22. As a result, the Registrant was unable to evidence that he had addressed the concerns in any practical and measurable way. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that there remained a real risk of repetition of his behaviour should he find himself in similar circumstances with a service user.

23. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the basis of the personal component.

24. The Panel also concluded that public confidence would be undermined by the fact that the Registrant had not been able or willing to engage with the conditions which had been imposed for serious breaches of professional boundaries, and that the need to uphold public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and behaviour would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made.

25. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the basis of the public component.

Sanction

26. The Panel approached the question of sanction from the least restrictive upwards. It was aware that the purpose of sanction is to protect the public and uphold the public interest, and not to punish. It exercised the principle of proportionality, being mindful that the least restrictive sanction necessary and sufficient to address the concerns and risks, and no more, should be imposed. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

27. The Panel first considered whether to take no action. It concluded that this would be wholly inappropriate and would provide no restriction on the Registrant’s practice, which would be needed to protect the public. Nor would it be sufficient to address the public interest concerns in the case. A Caution Order would be insufficient for the same reasons, bearing in mind the level of seriousness of the misconduct and the real risk of repetition.

28. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. The Panel carefully looked at the conditions and the submissions from both parties. The Panel was disappointed that the Registrant had ignored the Conditions of Practice Order by inactivity. This resulted in him only returning to consider the Conditions of Practice Order about a month prior to today’s hearing. The Panel, though, did note the Registrant’s reasons for this. The Panel was mindful for the need for the Registrant to be proactive himself in complying with the conditions for a Conditions of Practice Order to be appropriate and workable.

29. The Panel carefully considered the Registrant’s answers to Panel questions and was prepared to accept that he is now willing to engage with conditions and will do so as soon as possible.

30. The Panel was satisfied that the current conditions were sufficient and also necessary to address the concerns, protect the public, and uphold the public confidence in the profession while allowing the Registrant to work subject to the necessary safeguards.

31. The Panel determined that the Conditions of Practice Order should run for a further period of six months to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, which has not yet been addressed, and also to focus the Registrant’s mind in engaging with them so that he can demonstrate compliance. Such time will also allow the Registrant to demonstrate that he has embedded his learning and progress.

32. The Panel went on to consider a Suspension Order and also a Striking Off Order but decided that both of these would be disproportionate in light of the Registrant’s continued engagement with the regulatory process, his clear commitment to his profession, and his indications today that he is now willing and able to take steps to comply with the conditions.

33. The 6-month Conditions of Practice Order, set out below, will take effect from 24 October 2025, pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

34. This Order will be reviewed before its expiry on 24 April 2026.

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register to show that, for a period of 6 months, you, Mr Arthur Martial, must comply with the following conditions of practice:

1. You must inform the HCPC within 7 days if you take up any other or further professional work.

2. You must inform the HCPC within 7 days of becoming aware of:

A. any patient safety incident you are involved in;

B. any investigation started against you;

C. any disciplinary proceedings taken against you.

3. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions:

A. any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake professional work;

B. any agency you are registered with or apply to be registered with to undertake professional work (at the time of application);

C. any prospective employer for professional work (at the time of your application);

4. Within 21 days of the operative date, you must identify a mentor who must be a HCPC Registered Physiotherapist, a GMC Registered Doctor or any other regulated healthcare professional.

5. You must work with your mentor to formulate a Personal Development Plan addressing the area of professional boundaries.

6. Within 3 months of the Operative Date, you must forward a copy of your Personal Development Plan to the HCPC.

7. You must meet with your mentor on a monthly basis to consider your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

8. You must allow your mentor to provide information to the HCPC about your progress towards achieving the aims set out in your Personal Development Plan.

9. You must forward to the HCPC a report from your mentor about your compliance with these conditions no later than 28 days before any review hearing.

10. You must attend a face to face or virtual training course on the topic of professional boundaries within 3 months and forward to the HCPC confirmation of your completion of this course within 14 days of completion.

The Order imposed today will apply from 24 October 2025.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 24 April 2026.

History of Hearings for Arthur Martial