Gail Ashington

Preliminary Matters
Service of Notice

1.   The Panel was provided with a signed certificate as proof that the Notice of Hearing (hereafter ‘the Notice’) had been sent by electronic mail (‘e-mail’) on 18 July 2025, to the email address shown for the Registrant on the HCPC register. The Panel also noted that it had before it an email ‘delivery receipt’ confirming that the Notice had been delivered to the Registrant’s email address, on 18 July 2025, timed at 12:16pm.

2. Additionally, the Panel had an email from the Registrant, dated 01 October 2025 and timed at 11:35pm, before it. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s email was in response to correspondence from the HCPTS, dated 26 September 2025, in which the HCPTS asked the Registrant to confirm whether she intended to attend the Substantive Hearing (listed between 13 – 15 October 2025 and 03 – 05 November 2025). The Registrant’s response stated:
‘Hello
In newer [sic] to your questions the answer are [sic] all no.
I am not able to get time off from my current role as a medical examiner officer to attend. This time of year is busier. I have been in this role since January 2021. I have not worked as a sonographer since i self referred to the HCPC and do not attend [sic] to work as a sonographer again. My union rep will not attend. I have no documents to provide. Thank you’.

3. Additionally, the Panel also had regard to email correspondence from the Registrant dated 08 October 2025 (outlined in full below), whereby the Registrant provided written submissions for the Panel’s consideration and which also made reference to ‘the hearing’, clearly indicating to the Panel that the Registrant was aware of the upcoming Substantive Hearing.

4. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was satisfied, in view of the aforementioned, that the Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 (Proof of Service) and Rule 6 (date, time and venue) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Rules’).

Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
5. Mr Cubbon, appearing on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, as permitted by Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, he drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s emails, dated 01 and 08 October 2025.

6. Further, Mr Cubbon also submitted:
i. the Registrant had decided of her own volition not to attend the hearing and had not sought an adjournment of the hearing;
ii. there was nothing before the Panel to suggest that an adjournment of the proceedings would secure the Registrant’s future attendance at a hearing; and
iii. whilst the Registrant may be at a disadvantage by voluntarily choosing not to attend, the HCPC submitted that the interests of the public outweigh any disadvantage caused to the Registrant in this case, should the Panel decide to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

7. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”.

8. The Panel determined that it was reasonable and in the public interest to proceed with the hearing for the following reasons:
a) the Panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Rules and that the Registrant had been afforded over two months’ notice of the hearing;

b) there has been no application to adjourn the hearing and the emails from the Registrant provided no indication that the Registrant was seeking an adjournment of the hearing or that she would be willing or able to attend on an alternative date. Consequently, the Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the proceedings;

c) the Panel recognised that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to give evidence or make oral submissions to it. However, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been afforded with an opportunity to attend the hearing and she had chosen not to do so. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had made admissions to Particulars 1 - 4 of the Allegation and had also provided written representations (in her email dated 08 October 2025, outlined below), for it to consider and the Panel would have regard to these matters when determining the case before it. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that any potential disadvantage caused to the Registrant by her voluntarily absenting herself from the proceedings, could be mitigated with reference to her written submissions and admissions; and

d) as this is a Substantive Hearing there is a strong public interest in ensuring that it is considered expeditiously. The Panel was also of the view that it was also in the Registrant’s own interest that the Allegation was heard as soon as possible given the age of the Allegation.

Amendment to the Allegation
9. The Legal Assessor drew both Mr Cubbon’s and the Panel’s attention to the drafting of the Allegation. In doing so, the Legal Assessor highlighted that the stem of the Allegation (outlined below) replicated matters outlined in Particulars 5 and 6 (embolden for ease of reference), in respect of grounds and impairment. As such, the Legal Assessor outlined that the Allegation was repetitive in nature and potentially required the Panel to determine grounds and impairment at the facts stage of the proceedings:
‘As a registered Diagnostic Radiographer (RA32420) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and/or a lack of competence. In that, between August 2019 and March 2020 while working at Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust you:

10. Mr Cubbon submitted that he had no objection to the Panel removing the underlined wording (as outlined above).

11. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it had regard to: Mr Cubbon’s submissions; the documentation before it and to the fact that the Registrant had not been put on notice of the proposed amendment to the Allegation.

12. Having done so, the Panel concluded, after reviewing the proposed amendment to the Allegation, that it would agree to the stem of the Allegation being amended for the following reasons:
a. the proposed amendment was to provide further clarification and better particularisation of the Allegation; and
b. the proposed redaction did not heighten the seriousness of the Allegation, nor did it widen the scope of the Allegation. The Panel therefore considered that there was no likelihood of injustice to the Registrant.

Background
13. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer.

14. The Registrant was employed by Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) at Walsall Manor Hospital (‘the Hospital’) between 2016 and August 2020, as a Superintendent Sonographer. The Registrant made a self- referral to HCPC in July 2020, in relation to the matters set out below.

15. In April 2019, a new national programme entitled ‘Saving Babies Lives’ was implemented by the Hospital. This programme required a 25% increase of scanning capacity. There had been a significant increase in demand for antenatal scans at the Hospital and patients were being squeezed into full clinic lists and could only be accommodated by Sonographers working faster or later. During this period of time the Registrant raised concerns in relation to both the Department’s capacity and her own capacity, on a number of occasions. Mr PC, an employee of the Trust and an HCPC witness, undertook a review of the Registrant’s department at the Hospital, which established that it was working at 118% capacity. PC also introduced a booking template for the appointment system to ensure patients were scanned in line with national agreed standards and to ensure patient safety.

16. In September 2019, a baby born at the Hospital became the subject of an investigation by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (‘HSIB’). During the investigation, it was noted that the Registrant had significantly under-measured the baby and had completed the scan substantially quicker than the national guideline of 20 minutes (guidelines cited below) outlined it ought to take to carry out such a scan. The baby was born via emergency caesarean section (‘c-section’) and his weight was significantly higher than that estimated by the scans undertaken by the Registrant.

17. Consequently, PC completed an initial review of the Registrant’s scans followed by an audit of all members of staff within the Hospital’s department. The audit discovered between June and December 2019 the average number of scans per month per Sonographer was 321. However, the Registrant averaged 445 scans per month. On 8 May 2020, 32 scans conducted by the Registrant were also audited by PC. During this audit it was noted that the average scanning time by the Registrant was 2.6 minutes, as opposed to the allotted department time of 20 minutes (which was the time allocated in line with national guidance).

18. Restrictions were placed on the Registrant’s practice in June 2020 and in July 2020, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC. The Registrant resigned from the Trust in August 2020 for reasons unrelated to her practice.

19. Upon receipt of the above information and during the course of its investigation into the concerns raised, the HCPC instructed an expert, Ms Tracy Butcher. Mrs Butcher reviewed images of 11 examinations undertaken by the Registrant and produced a report, dated 22 January 2022. In that report, Mrs Butcher opined the view that the Registrant’s practice fell below the expected standard of a reasonably competent radiographer.

Decision on Facts
Summary of Evidence
20. Mr Cubbon opened and summarised the HCPC’s case. In doing so, he outlined that the HCPC relied upon the Registrant’s written admissions (as contained within the ‘Statement of Agreed Facts’ document) and he submitted that on the basis of this information in addition to the witness evidence before the Panel, that the Panel could find the facts proved.

21. The Panel considered the Registrant’s written admissions with care. In doing so, it noted that the Registrant was unrepresented and had not attended the hearing. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had accepted Particulars 1 - 4 within the Allegation, in the ‘Statement of Agreed Facts’ document furnished to her. In addition, providing the following submissions, outlined within an email to the HCPC, dated 08 October 2025 (timed at 14.41pm):
‘Hello
I can confirm I will not be able to attend the hearing due to my work commitments as a medical examiner officer.
Can I please add the following to the hearing.
I have worked for 27 years as a sonographer. I worked for several hospital trusts and worked to support each department.
I was told by Walsall I did not have to report. I self reported as I did not think this was correct. I have not worked as a sonographer since the incident. I have no intention of working again in this role as I do not feel trust support staff. My current employer is aware and I do not need HPC status on my current role.
I accept my responsibility in this incident and this is why I no longer work in this role. After 5 years I do not intend to retrain.
Gail Ashington MSc.’

22. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and it had regard to the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Admissions’. Having done so, the Panel determined that in view of the fact that the Registrant was unrepresented in these proceedings, had not attended the hearing to confirm her admissions in person; and the HCPTS practice note appeared to focus upon a Panel accepting admissions from a Registrant who was in attendance at a hearing as opposed to considering written admissions from an absent Registrant, that it would consider the totality of the evidence before it rather than just accepting the Registrant’s written admissions as sufficient to find the facts proved. In making this decision, the Panel also had regard to the fact that it is for the HCPC to prove its case and the Panel therefore determined that it was fairest, and in the interests of justice, to consider the Registrant’s admissions as part of the wider matrix of evidence presented to it rather than rely upon them alone to find facts proved.

Witness evidence
The HCPC did not call any witnesses to give oral evidence to the Panel. The witness accounts below are therefore provided as a summary of the documentary evidence provided to the Panel and are not intended to be a verbatim or detailed account of the evidence provided.
Person A:
23. Person A’s written witness statement informed the Panel that they were previously employed by the Trust, at the Hospital, as a Superintendent Sonographer of the General Ultrasound and obstetric department (‘the department’) between February 2012 and March 2020. Person A also outlined that within this role, they managed the non-clinical aspects of the department including the line management of the Sonographers, administrative functions, performance management and disciplinaries and that that they were assisted by PC, who was the Consultant Sonographer, managing the clinical functions of the department.

24. Person A stated within their witness statement that the Registrant was employed by the Trust and was appointed as the Principal Sonographer for Obstetrics and Gynaecology and was responsible for running the five sonography rooms in the Antenatal Clinic (‘ANC’), overseeing staffing and ensuring the clinical aspects of the department were safe and effective. Person A also outlined that the Registrant would, in addition to the aforementioned responsibilities, have a caseload of her own, scanning patients throughout the day. Person A further outlined that the Registrant typically worked Monday to Friday 08.30am to 5pm with a one-hour break for lunch. However, they also stated that the Registrant would frequently come into the department early.

25. Person A also outlined that when the Registrant joined the Hospital, she was an experienced Radiographer and Sonographer and that she joined as a Band 8A, which was considered to be a management position. Further, Person A also stated that during her interview for the role and prior to being appointed, the Registrant had demonstrated that she had the skill set to fulfil the criteria for this role.

26. Person A also outlined that a key aspect of training and practice as a Sonographer is to understand the recommended minimum appointment length is 20 minutes as set out in the British Medical Ultrasound Society (‘BMUS’), the Royal College of Gynaecology (‘RCG’) and the Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (‘FASP’) protocol followed nationally and by the Trust.
27. Person A also stated that as part of the Registrant’s mandatory training she had an individual Performance and Development Review (‘IPDR’) annually and that further, during the latter course of their relationship, the Registrant had described feeling unsupported and had utilised staff meetings to raise ongoing concerns about the department, including concerns relating to its capacity.

28. Person A also outlined in their witness statement that since they had joined the department in 2012, it had struggled with capacity issues in that the department did not have enough staff, rooms or equipment to complete the scans that it was being asked to undertake. Notwithstanding this, Person A also outlined that the Hospital had been voted number 3 in the country for detecting intrauterine growth restriction (‘IUGR’) (when a baby does not grow sufficiently inside the womb). Person A also stated that the Hospital’s ranking in this complex area was something that everyone in the department was proud of and demonstrated that notwithstanding the capacity issues within it, the department was working well.

29. Person A also highlighted in their statement that during their time as the Registrant’s line manager, the Registrant had raised her own capacity issues with her. Person A further outlined that the Registrant had stated that she did not have sufficient time to complete the scans she was being asked to complete and that further, on 03 September 2019, the Registrant expressed concerns about the department’s capacity stating that there were not enough staff to cover absences and the department could not cope with the referrals being sent by the Antenatal Clinic (‘ANC’).

30. Person A also outlined that similar concerns, regarding capacity, were also raised by other members of staff within the department. Person A also confirmed that efforts to address the departments capacity issues were “ongoing” and “enduring” and both Person A and PC had sought to raise these at management meetings attended by them both. Person A also clarified that the Registrant would have been expected, within her role, to prioritise urgent scans and escalate her lack of capacity.

31. Person A also indicated that the Registrant, in a bid to accommodate the oversubscribed lists within the department, would often accept extra scans on her own list to try and accommodate patients being seen. Person A expressed the view that they did not encourage the Registrant’s approach and stated that Person A actively sought to discourage this when they were made aware of it. However, as the Registrant was an autonomous practitioner it was not always possible for them to “correct this behaviour”.

32. Person A also confirmed that in 2019 they were made aware that a baby born within the Hospital had been ‘under measured’ and that this incident led to an investigation being undertaken by HSIB. Person A outlined that they did not have a copy of the HSIB report however, they were aware that the findings of the report were that the scan undertaken by the Registrant was under 20 minutes, of poor quality, and that it also outlined that the Registrant had also underestimated the baby’s weight. Consequently, when the baby was born on 03 September 2019, it was delivered by emergency c-section and the baby suffered a number of additional health issues and complications caused by failed vaginal delivery and the emergency c-section.

33. Following this incident and the capacity issues raised within the department, Person A outlined that both she and PC agreed that a review and audit of the department was required to better understand how many ANC scans were being conducted. Person A appended a copy of the audit to their witness statement and also highlighted that it had been established that Sonographers working within the department were completing, on average, 321 scans per month. Whereas the Registrant was undertaking 445 scans, which equated to 140% of what every other Sonographer was completing.

34. Person A also outlined that PC, as part of his audit, reviewed a number of the images completed by the Registrant and compared them to the Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme criteria and found them to be lacking.

35. Person A further outlined within their witness statement that on 20 August 2019, the Registrant scanned 35 patients, which was 153% of her capacity for the day and on average the time taken for each scan was 12 minutes when the expectation set out in the Society of Radiographers and the BMUS states that she should take a minimum of 20 minutes. Person A also confirmed that this was on the same date that the Registrant misidentified the aforementioned baby’s weight. Person A also identified that the overall result of the audit and review of the images was that the Registrant was only in compliance with 63% of basic imaging standards and the minimum acceptable compliance is 75%. Following this result, a decision was taken to remove the Registrant from undertaking scans within the department and she was asked to complete administrative tasks instead.

36. Person A also indicated that should the Registrant have had concerns over her own or department capacity, she should have raised these concerns with the Trust Safeguarding site on the Hospital Intranet, in addition to raising them with her and that as far as she was aware, the Registrant had not done so.

37. Person A also provided a number of documentary exhibits, attesting to the aforementioned, for the Panel’s consideration.

PC
38. PC outlined in his written witness statement that he is a Consultant Sonographer, who is employed by the Trust working at the Hospital and has been doing so since June 2015. PC also stated that he has a diploma in Radiography, which he received whilst working in the army, and he also outlined his other qualifications and his experience of 30 years of Obstetric ultrasound scanning.

39. PC stated that the Registrant was employed by the Hospital as the Obstetric Lead Sonographer, whom he met on 01 December 2016, when he interviewed her for the role to which she was appointed. PC also outlined the Registrant’s day to day responsibilities, which accorded with Person A’s account of the Registrant’s role.

40. PC further confirmed within his witness statement that the Registrant’s working hours were contracted to be 9am – 5pm Monday to Friday, but that she would frequently arrive in the department between 7am to 8am each day and would often work late, without taking a break. PC stated that he had a good working relationship with the Registrant and that he had his own department to run, so he did not have day-to-day interactions with her.

41. PC outlined that in March 2019, he conducted some research into the ‘Saving Babies Lives’ (‘SBL’) programme and further to that research it was highlighted to the Hospital management team that in order for this programme to be implemented (which would result in a 25% increase of scanning capacity), the sonography departments would need to be fully staffed (they were, at the time, operating under-staffed). However, after raising the matter, PC stated that he heard no more about it between March and July 2019.

42. PC also highlighted to the Panel that the Hospital was aware that the department was experiencing capacity issues and that the workload was continuing to increase and in July 2019, the Divisional Director of Midwifery, Gynaecology and Sexual Health, at the Hospital, issued an email indicating that money had been found to implement the SBL programme within the department. However, PC also outlined that unbeknownst to him and other members of staff within the department, the Hospital had seemingly implemented the SBL programme in April 2019. PC outlined that he continued to raise concerns, with the Hospital, about the implementation of the SBL programme without the appropriate resourcing to support the 25% increase in service requirements necessary to effectively and safely implement the programme. PC provided supporting emails and exhibits to attest to his correspondence in this regard for the Panel’s consideration.

43. PC also outlined within his witness statement that on 05 July 2019 and again on 07 August 2019, the Registrant informed him of her own capacity issues and her difficulty in managing the work being requested of her. PC further outlined that on 29 August 2019, the Registrant emailed him again regarding the departments capacity issues and stated that she described them as “the current crisis of no staff”, a description which PC stated was an accurate description of the staffing issues at the time. PC further outlined that he continued to raise concerns with senior management at the Hospital for the remainder of 2019, and that he continued to do so until July 2020.

44. PC further outlined that in August 2019, the capacity within the department became particularly bad and consequently, in an attempt to ease the pressures felt within the department he devised a ‘booking template’ for the appointment system that everyone in the department, including the Registrant, was instructed to follow. PC stated that the template would be fully implemented within the department by January 2020. PC outlined that the template limited the number of scans that any member of the department could complete in a day, to 22 scans. PC stated that he determined this to be the appropriate number based upon a 7.5-hour working day and that one scan should be conducted in approximately 20 minutes. PC outlined that he met with staff within the department to explain the template to them and that should any staff member exceed 22 scans then he would consider it to be a disciplinary issue. PC also stated that whilst it was possible that an experienced Sonographer could have completed scans more quickly than 20 minutes, he felt it was important that the department operate in line with national guidance and provide even experienced Sonographers with the time to consider their scans and not worry about departmental pressures.

45. PC also stated that in September 2019, a baby in the Hospital was born significantly larger than expected and had to be delivered by emergency c-section. He further outlined that this incident led the HSIB to conduct an investigation and that the outcome of the investigation was that the baby has been scanned by the Registrant at 34 and 36-weeks’ gestation, on 06 and 20 August 2019. PC further outlined that the scans undertaken by the Registrant were conducted in less than 20 minutes and were considered to be of ‘poor quality’. Additionally, PC stated that the Registrant’s estimate of foetal weight was 24% under the actual foetal weight at birth and had the parents known the foetal weight they may not have opted to deliver the baby vaginally, but may have elected for a c-section. PC also outlined that when the baby was born, on 03 September 2019, its weight was 4.6kg despite the Registrant’s estimate being 3.6kg, and that further, the baby suffered a number of health issues caused by the attempted vaginal delivery and the emergency c-section (the baby subsequently recovered).

46. PC indicated that following this incident, and after reviewing the HSIB report, he decided to independently investigate the matter further and as part of this investigation he conducted an initial review of the Registrant’s scans. PC commented that as a result of his own review, he concluded that the Registrant’s scans had been undertaken too quickly and not in line with national guidance.

47. Further, PC also outlined that as a result of the ongoing departmental capacity pressures and in light of the aforementioned incident regarding the baby’s birth, he became concerned about the number of scans being conducted within the department. Forming part of this concern, he noted that the Registrant had scanned 35 patients on 20 August 2019, and the last four scans were all conducted within a 20-minute window, whereas the time for each appointment should have been 20 minutes per patient. PC stated that he was “deeply concerned” but what he found and determined to conduct an audit of the department’s capacity.

48. PC further outlined that he selected the period of June to December 2019, as this was the period in which he and Person A, had noted a significant increase in demand and an issue with capacity within the department. PC stated that the mean number of scans conducted per Sonographer per month, within the department, was 321 per month. However, the Registrant had conducted on average 445 per month. PC stated that this meant that the Registrant was operating at over 140% of the capacity of every other Sonographer within the department.

49. PC also drew the Panel’s attention, within his witness statement, to the guidance produced by the SOR, which he outlined states: ‘in the absence of a valid and agreed assessment of examination times for general medical ultrasound examinations that fully takes into account the local circumstances, the SCoR advises that a minimum of 20 minutes per examination is allocated’. PC further stressed that this guidance sets out that each examination appointment should last a minimum of 20 minutes, which was again confirmed by the SCoR in January 2020.

50. PC further identified that following his initial concerns over capacity, he had become concerned about how quickly the Registrant was conducting scans and as such he determined to review more of her cases and scans. Further to collecting the required data, which he asked a colleague to assist with obtaining, PC stated that images should be of a diagnostic threshold to be useful and if this is not the case, then this, of itself, should be recorded by the Sonographer undertaking a scan. PC also highlighted for the Panel, that for a scan image to be of a specific threshold it should have the anatomy present and be of a particular orientation producing a simple score for each image giving a total score and therefore a percentage. PC outlined that when he compared the quality of the Registrant’s scans to national guidance, the Registrant’s mark, was only 63% and a student would be expected to have a pass rate of 75%.

51. PC also stated that he did not believe that the issues regarding the Registrant’s practise were entirely her own, and he acknowledged that both the Registrant and others in the department had raised frequent concerns about capacity and that additionally both the Registrant, and others, had tried to cope by undertaking more scans to satisfy the Hospital’s demand. PC stated that this was in an attempt to ensure that patients did not have to wait too long for scans or have them delayed. PC also outlined that in his opinion, the increased pressure from the Hospital and the implementation of the SBL, without informing the Registrant (and others), led to a situation where the Registrant began to complete too many scans herself and that this led to a decrease in image quality and errors were “inevitable”.
52. PC also provided a number of documentary exhibits, attesting to the aforementioned, for the Panel’s consideration.

Expert report by Mrs Tracy Butcher:
53. On 22 January 2022, Mrs Tracy Butcher was commissioned by the HCPC, as part of its investigation into the Registrant’s conduct to determine whether the ultrasound scans performed by the Registrant were in accordance with National standards and guidelines. Additionally, Mrs Butcher was also asked to identify any fitness to practise concerns in regards to the Registrant’s conduct. For the purpose of her review, Mrs Butcher was provided with eleven examinations (including scan images), which were undertaken by the Registrant, one of the eleven scans was undertaken in the second trimester, at seventeen weeks gestation, and the remaining ten scans were third trimester growth scans.

54. Mrs Butcher provided the Panel with a very detailed report outlining: the guidelines which ought to be adopted when scans are undertaken; an explanation of how measurements and images should be undertaken; and her findings in respect of each of the eleven examinations. However, in her conclusion Mrs Butcher opined the following view:
‘…Based on the examinations reviewed it is my opinion that the Registrant’s practice falls below the expected standard of a reasonable and a responsible Radiographer…’

Documentation and submissions from the Registrant
55. The Panel noted that the Registrant had outlined, in the ‘Statement of Agreed Facts’ document, dated 18 September 2025, provided by the HCPC and signed to her, that she admitted Particulars 1 to 4 in full.

56. Further, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had provided the written submission, dated 08 October 2025, (outlined above) for its consideration and which it had regard to.

Decisions on Facts
Panel’s Approach
57. The Panel was aware that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything and the individual particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities.

58. In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundles (outlined below), as well as the oral and written submissions made by the parties.

59. The Panel had before it the following documentation:
i. HCPC case summary – 5 pages;
ii. HCPC hearing bundle – 1027 pages;
iii. Statement of Agreed facts – 2 pages;
iv. HCPC service bundle – 8 pages;
v. Proceeding in absence bundle – 36 pages;
vi. Email exchange between the Registrant and HCPC – 3 pages; and
vii. Preliminary decision, dated 21 November 2024 – 12 pages.
60. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes: “Admissions”.

Stem
‘As a registered Diagnostic Radiographer (RA32420) between August 2019 and March 2020 while working at Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust you:

61. The Panel was satisfied on the evidence before it, namely the certificate of HCPC Registration, that the Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer and that her registration number is RA32420.

62. The Panel was also satisfied, on the witnesses’ evidence before it, that the Registrant was employed by the Trust between August 2019 and March 2020.

63. Consequently, the Panel was satisfied that the stem of the Allegation was made out.

Particulars 1 and 2 – PROVED
1. Did not exercise safe clinical practice in that you performed an excessive number of patient ultrasound examinations within hospital clinic lists

2. Did not adhere to guidance from the Society and College of Radiographers: Ultrasound examination times and appointments in that you rushed scans with patients and/or spent insufficient time scanning patients

64. The Panel first considered the meaning of ‘safe practice’ and in doing so, it had regard to the guidance exhibited to the witnesses’ statements (as outlined above). Having reviewed the guidance, the Panel formed the view that the appropriate time for conducting a patient ultrasound scan was 20 minutes.

65. Whilst the Panel accepted PC’s evidence that an experienced Sonographer may conduct a scan more quickly than that outlined within the guidance (20 minutes), the Panel also noted that some of the scans performed by the Registrant, which were reviewed within PC’s audit and as part of the expert’s report, were less than five minutes each in duration. Further, the Panel also noted that both PC and Mrs Butcher had outlined, in detail, how some of the scans and images produced by the Registrant, were not up to the required standards.

66. Having regard to the guidance, the Panel did not consider, that the Registrant’s actions in this regard amounted to ‘safe practice’, nor did her actions adhere to national guidance.

67. In furtherance of this view, the Panel also noted that on 20 August 2019, when the Registrant had miscalculated the foetal weight of the baby born in September 2019 (as outlined by PC in his witness statement), the Registrant’s practice could not be considered to be ‘safe’, because the Panel noted that the Registrant had made an error in respect of the baby’s expected weight and additionally she had also scanned four patients within a single 20-minute window of time. The Panel therefore also considered that the Registrant’s practice in this regard did not adhere to the guidance and that she had rushed scans and spent insufficient time scanning patients.

68. Further, in consideration of whether the Registrant had conducted an excessive number of patient ultrasounds within clinic lists, the Panel had regard to PC’s evidence that he had given a directive to staff within the department, that sonographers ought to conduct no more than 22 scans in a working day and that the Registrant had been found to have conducted considerably more than this number. The Panel noted that one such example of this was on 20 August 2019, when the Registrant had scanned 35 patients.

69. The Panel also noted that PC had provided evidence to it that he had conducted a review of capacity within the department and that following his review, he had determined that the mean number of scans conducted by Sonographers within the department was 321 per month, whereas the Registrant’s average number of scans, in the same time period, was 445.

70. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the Registrant had performed an excessive number of patient ultrasounds during hospital clinic lists, that she had not adhered to guidance in that she had rushed scans with patients and that she had also spent insufficient time scanning them.

71. In forming this view, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had admitted, in the Statement of Agreed Facts document (dated 18 September 2025), that she did not exercise safe clinical practice in that she performed an excessive number of patient ultrasound examinations within hospital clinic lists and that she also accepted that she had not adhered to guidance and had rushed scans with patients and spent insufficient time scanning them.

72. Consequently, having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied, to the required standard, that the facts contained within Particulars 1 and 2 were proved.

Particulars 3 and 4 - PROVED
3. Performed ultrasound scans to an unacceptable standard in that, between 30 December 2019 and 13 January 2020, you:
a) Did not exercise sufficient care and skill when undertaking foetal head and/or abdominal circumference measurements
b) Did not adjust the position of patients and/or foetuses when required to ensure accurate scan images
c) Did not ensure the foetal skull was slid into the centre of the screen to allow for an accurate head circumference measurement
d) Over-magnified scanned images by using an overall zoom facility
e) Did not use change the depth setting in order to obtain an optimal scanned image
f) Performed scans where part of the foetal skull was outside of the field of view
g) Did not place callipers accurately in that you did not place callipers on the anatomical outline and/or you placed them outside of the scanned image, leading to inaccurate measurements
h) Undertook scans where the foetal borders within images were not clear
i) Placed the foetus’ abdominal section too high resulting in lung tissue being visible on the scan
j) Did not adjust equipment settings to ensure accurate scan images
k) Did not exercise sufficient care and skill when selecting appropriate contrast levels
l) Did not perform an adequately thorough assessment and/or scan of a suspected cyst.

4. Undertook ‘umbilical artery trace Doppler scans’ ineffectively between 30 December 2019 and 13 January 2020 in that:
a) You did not invert the images
b) you did not remove artefacts from the image by changing your scanning position.

73. The Panel again carefully considered the evidence before it and in doing so it noted Mrs Butcher’s expert evidence to it in respect of the eleven scans undertaken by the Registrant. Additionally, the Panel also noted PC’s evidence to it regarding what an ultrasound image should include and that the Registrant’s images, in the cases he reviewed, only met a threshold of 63%, when compared to national guidance.

74. Having carefully reviewed and cross-referenced each of the matters outlined within Particulars 3 and 4’s sub-particulars, the Panel was satisfied, on the totality of the evidence presented to it, that the Registrant had not performed ultrasound scans to an acceptable standard, and had undertaken umbilical artery trace doppler scans, between 30 December 2019 and 13 January 2020, in which she:
• did not exercise sufficient care and skill when undertaking foetal head and/or abdominal circumference measurements;
• did not adjust the position of patients and/or foetuses when required to ensure accurate scan images;
• did not ensure the foetal skull was slid into the centre of the screen to allow for an accurate head circumference measurement;
• over-magnified scanned images by using an overall zoom facility;
• did not use change the depth setting in order to obtain an optimal scanned image;
• performed scans where part of the foetal skull was outside of the field of view;
• did not place callipers accurately in that you did not place callipers on the anatomical outline and/or you placed them outside of the scanned image, leading to inaccurate measurements;
• undertook scans where the foetal borders within images were not clear;
• placed the foetus’ abdominal section too high resulting in lung tissue being visible on the scan;
• did not adjust equipment settings to ensure accurate scan images;
• did not exercise sufficient care and skill when selecting appropriate contrast levels;
• did not invert the images (for the doppler scans); and
• did not remove artefacts from the image by changing your scanning position (for the doppler scans).

75. In forming this view, the Panel again noted that the Registrant had made admissions as to the conduct alleged in Particulars 3 and 4.

76. Having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel was therefore satisfied to the requisite standard that the Registrant had not performed ultrasound scans to an acceptable standard, and had ineffectively performed umbilical artery trace doppler scans, between 30 December 2019 and 13 January 2020.

77. Consequently, the Panel found Particulars 3 and 4 proved.

Decision on Grounds
78. The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 to 4 amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct under Article 22(1)(a)(i) and / or lack of competence under Article 22(1)(a)(ii), of the Health Professions Order 2001.

79. In doing so, it accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and it took account of Mr Cubbon’s written and oral submissions which, in summary, had drawn the Panel’s attention to the following:
i. the Registrant’s conduct fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and he submitted, amounted to a lack of competence;
ii. the Registrant’s conduct could be considered to amount to misconduct and could be considered to be ‘serious’;
iii. the Registrant’s departure from the standards expected of her, were repeated;
iv. patient safety was compromised due to the Registrant’s conduct;
v. the Registrant’s actions could not be considered to be a momentary lapse in judgement or inconsequential in nature;
vi. the Registrant has outlined, in her written submissions, that she does not intend to take steps to remedy her practice failings;
vii. however, she has demonstrated some limited insight, in accepting her conduct.

80. In order to assist with its decision, the Panel considered the HCPC’s ‘Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics’ and the ‘Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers’.

81. Having done so, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct had breached the following:
Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics:
• 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;
• 7.1 – You must report any concerns about the safety or wellbeing of service users promptly and appropriately;
• 7.7 – You must acknowledge and act on concerns raised to you, investigating, escalating or dealing with those concerns where it is appropriate for you to do so.
Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers:
• 1- be able to practise safely and effectively within their scope of practice;
• 1.2 – be able to manage their own workload and resources effectively and be able to practise accordingly;
• 2.1 – understand the need to act in the best interests of service users at all times;
• 2.8 – be able to exercise a professional duty of care;
• 3.1 – understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct;
• 12 – be able to assure the quality of their practice;
• 14.2 – be able to formulate specific and appropriate management plans including the setting of timescales;
• 14.5 – be able to undertake or arrange investigations as appropriate; and
• 14.10 – be able to appraise image information for clinical manifestations and technical accuracy, and take further action as required.
82. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s actions amounted to a lack of competence. In doing so, the Panel had regard to the witness evidence before it.
83. The Panel noted that Person A had expressed the views that: the Registrant was a well-regarded Radiographer, with whom they had worked with at another Trust and that they were pleased when the Registrant joined the Radiography team at the Hospital; and that the Registrant had demonstrated, during her interview that she had the necessary knowledge and skills to perform at a Band 8 Radiographer level. Additionally, the Panel also noted that PC had stated that prior to the concerns which gave rise to the matters before the Panel, he had no concerns regarding the Registrant’s practice.

84. Additionally, the Panel also noted PC’s evidence where he stated:
‘My opinion is that the increased pressure from the Hospital and the implementation of SBL’s without informing [the Registrant], or the imaging Dept, led to a situation where [the Registrant] began to complete too many scans herself. In turn this led to a decrease in image quality and errors were inevitable. The NHS is often expected to cope with not enough staff, too many patients, limited space and poor equipment. [The Registrant] came into post understanding this as we all do. [The Registrant] did not have the benefit of being included in the decision taken by the Trust to implement Saving Babies Lives and was in my opinion actively excluded. However, [the Registrant], in her position, should have been aware of the increasing pressure on her department and staff. The incremental increasing pressure would have been difficult to assess, especially when you are “just about” managing each day, crisis to crisis. [The Registrant] should have had a clear idea of her department’s safe capacity as a limit and adhered to it regardless of outside pressures’.

85. Moreover, the Panel also noted in its assessment of the issue, that there was no suggestion from either witness that the Registrant lacked the requisite knowledge or skill to be able to effectively perform her role as a Radiographer.

86. Consequently, having reviewed the totality of the material and evidence presented to it, the Panel concluded that the matters found proved in Particulars 1 to 4 did not amount to a lack of competence on the Registrant’s part.

87. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant was an experienced Radiographer, who clearly had the knowledge and skills to be appointed to a senior position at the Hospital, leading a department. The Panel also concluded that there was nothing in the evidence before it which suggested that the Registrant did not have the requisite knowledge or skill in order to undertake her role to the required standards. Further, in forming this view, the Panel also determined that it had been presented with a fair sample of the Registrant’s work, as part of the audit undertaken by PC.

88. Having determined that the Registrant’s actions did not amount to a lack of competence, the Panel went on to consider whether the matters found proved amounted to misconduct.

89. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions of: not exercising safe clinical practise by undertaking an excessive number of scans within hospital lists; failing to adhere to national guidance in that she rushed scans and spent insufficient time scanning patients; and failing to conduct scans to an acceptable standard each amounted to conduct which fell far below the standards expected of a registered Radiographer and could only be considered to be conduct which was very serious in nature.

90. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the Registrant was a senior practitioner who clearly knew how to perform scans properly and to the required standards. Notwithstanding the accepted and reported demands being placed upon her and the wider department as a result of the number of scans being requested, the Registrant, in the Panel’s view, still had a professional obligation to undertake scans to the required standards. In failing to do so, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct posed a significant risk of harm to the public.

91. In forming this view, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s actions, in rushing scans and in a particular case, mis-measuring a baby. This resulted in an HSIB investigation whereby it was determined that the mother’s choice about birth options (vaginal delivery versus elective c-section) were limited. Consequently, an emergency c-section was required where both the mother and the baby suffered harm (albeit both recovered fully).

92. Further, the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s actions had a direct impact on her colleagues and the Hospital. In the Panel’s view, the SBL programme was implemented in a bid to reduce the number of babies at risk of dying. Notwithstanding the Registrant’s views on the programme, or the clear lack of resource provided by the Hospital to effectively implement it in April 2019, the Registrant was, in the Panel’s view, under a professional duty to undertake scans in line with national guidance (a minimum of 20 minutes per patient, per scan). In rushing scans, mis-measuring and producing poor quality images which were not able to be relied upon, the Registrant’s conduct had the potential to undermine the programme’s purpose and also negatively impact upon her colleagues and the wider Hospital’s reputation.

93. Additionally, in the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s actions also had the potential to place other practitioners practice at risk of fitness to practise proceedings, in that they too may have relied upon the measurements and images produced by the Registrant and if the measurements were inaccurate and scans unclear, they may have provided inaccurate advice dependent upon the Registrant’s actions.

94. Furthermore, in determining that the Registrant’s conduct could only be considered serious, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s actions were not isolated but were repeated on multiple occasions and sustained over many months (noting in particular, the outcome of PC’s audit and the expert’s review of the images provided to her).

95. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the matters outlined at Particular 1), Particular 2), Particular 3) and Particular 4) each represented serious breaches of professional standards, falling far below the behaviour expected of a registered Radiographer, and that each matter amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment
96. Having found misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. In doing so, the Panel took into account all of the evidence before it and it had regard to the oral and written submissions made by Mr Cubbon. In addition, the Panel also had regard to the Registrant’s written submissions and the HCPTS practice note titled ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’. The Panel also accepted the Legal Assessor’s legal advice.

97. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.

98. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable now and/or in the future to repeat conduct of the kind that led to her misconduct. In reaching its decision the Panel also had particular regard to the issues of insight, remorse and remediation.

99. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) Mrs Justice Cox stated:
“When considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue.”

100. The Panel also had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:
o whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;
o whether it has been remedied; and
o whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.
101. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s conduct was remediable and in doing so, it formed the view that the matters before it were remediable.

102. In considering whether the Registrant had demonstrated insight into her conduct, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s email dated 08 October 2025 (as outlined above). In doing so, the Panel noted that the Registrant had, within the body of her email, accepted her conduct. However, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s submission to it was extremely limited in nature and was focussed entirely upon herself. Further, the Panel also considered that the Registrant did not offer any meaningful insight into the impact of her actions upon service users, the wider public, her colleagues, or confidence in the wider profession.

103. Additionally, the Panel also considered that the Registrant’s submission did not adequately address the underlying causes or reasons for her conduct and it noted that the Registrant had expressed no remorse for her actions, or the harm caused as a result of them.

104. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant’s submission was very limited in nature and scope and also demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight, into her misconduct, on her part.

105. In considering whether the Registrant is currently impaired on the personal component, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had only provided limited information to it and that she had not engaged in a meaningful manner in the regulatory proceedings.

106. Additionally, the Panel noted that the Registrant had also not taken any steps to demonstrate that her conduct would not be repeated moving forward. This concerned the Panel because it noted its earlier findings that the Registrant’s conduct was repeated and sustained in nature and there was nothing before the Panel for it to be satisfied that the Registrant has addressed the underlying causes of her conduct. Furthermore, in support of this view, the Panel also noted that the Registrant had not provided any evidence to demonstrate successful completion of any Continuing Professional Development (‘CPD’) which addressed her failings and that she had confirmed that she had not practised as a Radiographer in many years. Moreover, the Panel also noted that the Registrant, in her submission to the Panel (dated 08 October 2025) had stated: “I accept my responsibility in this incident and this is why I no longer work in this role. After 5 years I do not intend to retrain.”

107. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had not taken any steps to remediate her conduct and it was therefore likely that the Registrant’s conduct would recur. In the Panel’s view, this placed the public at risk of harm.

108. Accordingly, having regard to all of the aforementioned, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

109. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds.

110. In relation to the public component of fitness to practise, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public policy issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:
“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

111. In the Panel’s view, the Registrant’s conduct falls below the required standards of her profession and as such, brings her profession into disrepute. The Registrant’s conduct was in regard to acts which the Panel considered to be serious and repeated in nature.

112. The Panel was also of the view that the public have to be able to trust healthcare professionals to perform their role to an appropriate standard and in line with national guidelines. The Panel was satisfied that the public would determine that it could not have confidence in the Registrant to perform her role safely moving forward, at the current time, given that she had been found not to have conducted scans appropriately or to the required standards, on multiple occasions.

113. In light of the aforementioned, the Panel also considered that public trust and confidence in the wider profession and the HCPC as its regulator, alongside the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards, would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.

114. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Decision on Sanction:
Panel’s approach
115. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Cubbon, on behalf of the HCPC, which in summary stated:
i. that the Panel ought to have regard to the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’ and in particular he drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs: 10 and 11, 20, 21, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 49 and 53;
ii. that the HCPC was not making a ‘sanctions bid’;
iii. that there were limited mitigating factors in this case and numerous aggravating factors, which included: limited insight; a repeated pattern of shortcomings, sustained over many months; a lack of remediation; and a lack of meaningful engagement in the regulatory proceedings; and
iv. if the Panel were to impose a Conditions of Practice, Suspension or a Striking-off Order, then the HCPC would request the imposition of an interim order to cover any appeal period.

116. The Panel referred to the ‘Sanctions Policy’ issued by the HCPC and it had in mind that the purpose of sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also aware of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate.

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

118. The Panel considered whether there were any mitigating factors in this case and determined that the following mitigating factors were present:
i. the Registrant made admissions relating to her conduct shortly before the regulatory hearing commenced;
ii. the Registrant has shown some reflection on her actions, albeit the Panel considered the reflections to be very limited in nature and mainly focused upon herself; and
iii. the Registrant is of previous good regulatory character.

119. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be that:
i. the Registrant’s conduct was repeated and sustained;
ii. her actions caused harm to service users and had the potential to cause harm to other service users and/or colleagues;
iii. the Registrant has stated that she has no desire to “retrain”; and
iv. the Registrant has demonstrated a lack of meaningful insight, remorse and/or remediation.

120. The Panel considered the option of taking no action. This is an exceptional outcome and the Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case were not exceptional. The Panel decided that the option of taking no action was not sufficient to uphold the public interest in this case in view of its findings.

121. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered the guidance in the Sanctions Policy that:
“(paragraph 101)…A Caution Order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases which:
o the lapse is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
o there is a low risk of repetition;
o the registrant has shown good insight;
o and has taken appropriate remediation”.

122. The Panel was of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the findings in this case, nor were the Registrant’s actions isolated or relatively minor in nature. Further, the Panel had also determined that there was a risk of repetition and that the Registrant had not shown ‘good insight’. Therefore, the Panel determined that a Caution Order was not appropriate. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its Regulator, would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.

123. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel considered that it would not be possible to draft conditions of practice which address the Registrant’s conduct because the Registrant has failed to engage with the regulatory process in a meaningful manner. Furthermore, she has also failed to demonstrate remorse. Additionally, the Panel noted that the Registrant has specifically outlined an unwillingness to address her conduct, stating that she would not be willing to retrain. The Panel therefore determined that a conditions of practice order was not workable, proportionate or appropriate in this case.

124. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel noted that the Sanctions Policy states:
‘(paragraph 121) … A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
o the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
o the Registrant has insight;
o the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and
o there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings’

125. Having had regard to the Sanctions Policy, the Panel considered that a suspension order was not appropriate in this case. In forming this view, the Panel again noted its earlier findings that the concerns raised in this case represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. Further, the Panel also noted its findings that the Registrant has not demonstrated appropriate insight into her conduct, nor has she provided any information regarding any attempts to address her conduct. The Panel was therefore not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct would be unlikely to be repeated. Given the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct, combined with her lack of meaningful engagement in the proceedings, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would also be undermined if a suspension order was imposed.

126. The Panel next considered a striking off order. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort. The Panel noted that the HCPC Sanction Policy document states that a striking off order is appropriate where:
‘(paragraph 130) … there has been serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts…’
and
‘(paragraph 131) … where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, the public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• Lacks insight;
• Continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.’

127. The Panel was of the view that the circumstances of this case are such that the Registrant acted in a deliberate and sustained manner and the Panel considered her actions to be serious. Further, the Registrant has also failed to demonstrate insight into her repeated and sustained conduct. Consequently, the Panel was of the view that these factors, when taken together, illustrate the actions of a Registrant: who lacks any meaningful insight; who has demonstrated insufficient remorse for her actions; and one who has not shown any willingness or intention to resolve matters moving forward. Further, the Panel was also of the view that the Registrant had not provided any evidence that her actions would not be repeated.

128. Having regard to the aforementioned, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order was appropriate to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, and that it would also send a clear message to other professionals. The Panel considered that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

129. In making its decision on sanction, the Panel had regard to the impact of such an order on the Registrant. In doing so, the Panel noted that the Registrant had stated that she did not wish to return to the Radiography profession and had gained alternative employment. Having taken this information into account, the Panel considered that notwithstanding any impact that such an order may have on the Registrant, the public interest considerations in this case significantly outweighed any detriment that might be caused to the Registrant by the imposition of a striking off order.

130. Accordingly, the Panel made an Order directing the Registrar to strike off the Registrant from the HCPC Register.

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

Right of Appeal:
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the Order it has made against you.
Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you.

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

History of Hearings for Gail Ashington