James Fort

Preliminary Matters/Admissions

1. At the commencement of the hearing the Registrant admitted the entirety of the factual allegations save for Particular 3 in relation to Particular 2(b). He later admitted that Particular mid-hearing, following witness evidence called on behalf of the HCPC.

2. Both Mr Morrison and the Registrant supported the suggestion that matters relating to the Registrant’s private life should be heard in private. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided to hear any matters that related to the Registrant’s private life in private in accordance with Rule 10(1)(a), which states:

“At any hearing, the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.

Witness Evidence

3. The HCPC called one witness, Mrs KS, Clinical Governance Assistant for the Ramsay Diagnostics team, who outlined the evidence relied on by the HCPC to prove the allegation.

Background

4. On 18 August 2014 the Registrant was employed as a Senior Radiographer for Ramsay Diagnostics UK (‘RDUK’), a mobile imaging subsidiary company of Ramsay Healthcare UK (“Ramsay”).

5. The Registrant lived in the West Midlands but on occasion was asked to work at hospitals far from home, such as at the Mount Stuart hospital in Torquay, Devon. On such occasions he was eligible to claim expenses, such as hotel accommodation, mileage, travel time and meals.

6. In January 2023, following a concern expressed by a Clinical Lead for RDUK South regarding a claim made by the Registrant for hotel accommodation when working at the Mount Stuart Hospital, Mrs KS commenced an investigation. This included meeting with the Registrant on 24 January 2023 and reviewing:

1. The electronic rota system;
2. the Registrant’s submitted timesheets;
3. the Registrant’s expense claim forms;
4. the Information System and Picture Archiving and Communication System;
5. relevant internal policy documents; and
6. the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance, and Ethics and Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers.

7. The investigation raised the concerns which are reflected in the Allegation.

8. The total sum gained by the Registrant through his alleged misconduct was £7,361.98.

Decision on Facts

9. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who advised the Panel that it was entitled to find the allegations of fact proved on the basis of the Registrant’s admissions, in accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note “Admissions”. The Legal Assessor confirmed that she had spoken with the Registrant in the presence of the Case Presenter and had explained the meaning of the Allegation to him. The Panel heard briefly from Mrs KS and from the Registrant and was content that the Registrant had a genuine understanding of what was alleged when admitting to it. The Panel found Particulars 1, 2 and 3 proved on the basis of the Registrant’s admissions. In considering the admission to Particular 3, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s behaviour in Particulars 1 and 2 was conducted deliberately, knowing that he should not be acting in this way, and would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary decent people.

10. The facts behind the Allegation are summarised below.

1. On one or more occasions between 3 May 2022 and 13 January 2023, whilst working at Ramsey Healthcare, you submitted inaccurate information on your timesheets, in that you recorded hours worked that were not carried out.

11. Mrs KS undertook a review of the timestamps on patients’ scan images and compared them to the finish times recorded by the Registrant on his timesheets. She identified 91 occasions between 3 May 2022 and 13 January 2023 when there was a discrepancy between the Registrant’s last patient time and his claimed finish time. This amounted to 171 hours claimed by the Registrant that he had not worked.

12. It was accepted by the Registrant that this was not a mistake on his part. The correct method of completing the timesheets had been made clear to staff in emails dated 14 April 2021, 27 April 2021 and 6 October 2021, and in presentations given on 21 January 2017 and 17 January 2018, which were attended by the Registrant.

13. In his interview on 24 January 2023 the Registrant stated that he entered 20.30 as his finish time on the timesheets as a matter of routine, regardless of what time he actually finished.

2. Between 3 May 2022 and 14 January 2023, you misappropriated funds from Ramsey Healthcare in that:

• a. On one or more occasions between 30 June 2022 and 14 January 2023, you submitted expense claims for hotel bookings that you had cancelled.

14. Mrs KS contacted hotels where the Registrant had submitted expenses claims for overnight stays in hotels and was told that the Registrant had booked hotels, paid in full and then cancelled the booking before the stay. He then kept the amount refunded to him. This applied to the following bookings:

1. 30 June 2022 - 2 July 2022 at Holiday Inn Express in Taunton;
2. 28-31 July 2022 at Holiday Inn Express in Taunton;
3. 11-12 August 2022 at Park Inn in Peterborough;
4. 13-17 October 2022 Holiday Inn Taunton;
5. 5-6 November 2022 at Holiday Inn Express in Taunton;
6. 15-18 December 2022 at Taunton House Hotel; and
7. 12-14 January 2023 at Holiday Inn in Taunton.

15. The total amount by which the Registrant benefited from these hotel accommodation claims was £2,330.97.

16. In his interview on 24 January the Registrant initially claimed that he had visited a friend’s house for dinner but had stayed the night at the hotel. However, when the hotel cancellations were put to him, he answered “It can’t be. Oh my God. Right” before then saying “No Comment”.

• b. On one or more occasions between 27 May 2022 and 18 December 2022 you submitted claims for mileage expenses that did not reflect the journeys you made.

17. Mrs KS identified 22 instances, between 27 May 2022 and 18 December 2022, where claims for mileage expenses were made by the Registrant for journeys he did not in fact make. Mrs KS discounted 5 of those instances, leaving 17 instances where it was clear that incorrect claims had been made for no good reason. These mostly took place by claiming for a day return journey when in reality, the Registrant was staying with a friend nearby and was not returning home.

• c. On one or more occasions between 5 May 2022 and 18 December 2022, you fraudulently claimed travel time.

18. Mrs KS identified 15 instances, between 5 May 2022 and 18 December 2022, where fraudulent claims were made for travel time.

• d. On one or more occasions between 11 May 2022 and 17 December 2022, you submitted claims for meal expenses for days on which you were not at work and/or were not working away from home.

19. On a number of occasions, the Registrant not only claimed that he was staying in a hotel, when he was not, but claimed for a meal that he was eating there, when in fact he was staying with a friend. For example:

1. 11 May 2022: evening meal claimed whilst working at Mount Stuart when the Registrant was not scheduled to be working that evening and the address for the meal delivery was in Warwick;
2. 13 – 15 May 2022: evening meal claimed alongside travel time for travel to home address. The meal was delivered to an address in Taunton;
3. 1 August 2022: evening meal claimed alongside travel time to home address;
4. 14 – 17 October 2022: meal expense purchased at 1929 when working hours recorded until 2030;
5. 18 October 2022: meal claimed when travelling to home address; and
6. 15 – 18 December 2022: meal expense purchased at 1845 when working hours recorded until 2030.

• 3. Your conduct in relation to particulars 1 and/or 2 above was dishonest, in that you deliberately claimed expenses, to which you knew were not entitled.

20. It was alleged and accepted by the Registrant that the behaviour set out in Particulars 1 and 2 had been deliberate, that he had known at the time that he should not be acting in the manner particularised, and that his actions would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary decent people.

Evidence on Grounds and Impairment

21. The Registrant submitted a bundle of documentation, which included three character references, including one from his current employer, [redacted], a February 2024 appraisal, an April 2023 Worker Feedback form, and a certificate and diploma in Professional Reflexology.

22. In his written statement the Registrant said as follows:

“This statement is written to provide the panel with a clear understanding of who I was at the time of the allegations and the ways in which I have grown since then. I am a husband to my incredibly supportive wife, [redacted], and find daily inspiration in my two [redacted] children [redacted]. Our family also includes my parents, who moved in with us at the time of my suspension from Ramsay Diagnostics. I am acutely aware of the impact this hearing may have on my close family.

I deeply regret the impact my selfish actions had on my family and the trust I shattered among longstanding colleagues and friends. It pains me to know that my mistakes demanded so much time and energy from former colleagues. I also let down my former boss… whose support had always meant a great deal to me. I apologised to her personally during my final days at Ramsay, and that moment was deeply emotional for us both. My reflections since then have been profound, and I am committed never to repeat these mistakes.

I accept full responsibility for the allegations against me. From the moment of my suspension, throughout the Ramsay disciplinary process, and during the entire HCPC referral proceedings, I have consistently acknowledged my actions.

I repaid the outstanding amount to Ramsay in full and promptly informed the HCPC of my situation. Furthermore, I apprised subsequent employers of my circumstances, prioritising transparency prior to any formal requirement. I remain sincerely appreciative of [JM] at the Royal Surrey Hospital for her support and willingness to employ me, despite her awareness of my previous employment circumstance.

I acknowledge all timesheet fraud allegations. For context, during my five years working with Nuffield Health on mobile CT scanners, the structure of shifts meant we rarely worked the full duration yet were compensated for the full hours. Whilst working at In-health and Alliance Medical on their banks, the contracts stated that if you arrived for your shift, you were paid in full regardless of finish time. Unfortunately, I allowed these experiences to overshadow Ramsay’s policies. Despite multiple team-wide warnings, I failed to change my behaviour. I acknowledge that this had an adverse effect on the company regarding finances and allocation of resources. For that, I am truly sorry.

At the Royal Surrey Hospital, when asked to leave early due to a lower workload, I always chose to stay until the scheduled end of my shift. Currently, at the community diagnostic centre attached to Royal Surrey Radiology, I face similar situations and continue to uphold this commitment. I have learned to remain within the boundaries of policy and intend never to stray again.

Explaining my fraudulent expense claims is difficult, as they stemmed from greed and dishonesty and I am full of remorse as a result. I betrayed the trust of both my colleagues and my employer for personal gain, and I am sincerely sorry for the harm caused. My actions were not premeditated but developed as I struggled with loneliness on the road and the urge to make unnecessary purchases to fill that void. This led to financial strain, which I attempted to solve through exploiting a loophole in Ramsay’s system.

Despite recognising my tendency towards honesty in daily life, I made repeated poor choices and failed to stop even after achieving my immediate goal. I admitted during my disciplinary hearing with Ramsay Health, that had I not been caught, I might have continued these actions which is a stark acknowledgment of my state of mind and judgment at the time.

Following my dismissal, I took a deliberate break from employment to reflect, reconnect with family and friends, and [redacted].

Throughout my time at Royal Surrey Hospital, I committed to a consistent thirty-three, hour, three- day workweek, choosing to undertake overtime solely to offset the absence of holiday pay in my locum role. [Redacted].

[Redacted]. I have also shifted my focus away from financial gain, learning instead to live within my means and prioritise contentment over material pursuits.

Upon commencement of my NHS role at the Royal Surrey I threw myself into the learning of a fast- paced emergency care lead environment. I have taken on cardiac training and continued the maintenance of skills already obtained. In Oct 2024 the Royal Surrey employed me on a substantive contract. I have been given excellent feedback from my time as a locum radiographer and in my substantive role and have become an integral part of the team.

In September 2024, I embarked on a Professional Reflexology Level 5 diploma course, successfully completing my studies in August. I am now preparing to begin part-time practice at the end of September, alongside my full-time NHS position. This journey has reignited my enthusiasm for learning and allowed me to apply my interpersonal skills in a direct, client-focused environment. My certification is attached for your records.

I have always considered myself an empathetic individual, yet I have often felt a sense of not belonging. In the past, I internalised these feelings, allowing them to affect my outlook and actions. However, through dedicated counselling, I have developed strategies to better manage such emotions and respond to challenges with greater self-awareness.

Material pursuits are no longer at the centre of my motivations. I now focus on clear priorities [redacted].

Recognising the importance of consistency for my wellbeing, I have decided not to pursue roles in mobile CT or MRI diagnostics in the future. Instead, I am focused on securing a position at my local community diagnostic centre, which would enable me to spend more time with my family. At present, my role requires me to live down in [redacted] for three days a week [redacted].

It is encouraging that management at South Warwickshire Hospital has indicated a willingness to consider me for employment should the outcome of this hearing permit me to continue practicing. I am genuinely optimistic about the future, as I look forward to integrating my careers in both radiography and reflexology, thereby building a fulfilling and balanced professional path.

For the purposes of this hearing, I have compiled three personal statements: two from colleagues in my current role and one from a close friend. In addition, two of these individuals have agreed to attend the hearing and serve as witnesses. It is my hope that their presence will enable the panel to seek clarification or further details regarding their statements if desired.

Thank you for considering my perspective and for giving me the opportunity to share how I have learned from my past experiences. I hope it has provided the necessary insight into how I have grown and progressed following my dismissal. I welcome any questions on the hearing day”.

23. The Registrant gave evidence at the impairment stage. He accepted that his past actions amounted to misconduct. He submitted that his fitness to practice was not currently impaired. He apologised for his behaviour. He explained that following the Covid pandemic he began to buy excess quantities of board games which led him into debt. He had a mortgage to clear and he “took the wrong path to clear the debt. He also worked overtime. He explained that he is still in debt but has started to reduce the amount of overtime and now stays with a friend when he has to work away from home. He said that he no longer buys board games, albeit that he occasionally looks for them online. He admitted that had he not been caught he might have continued with his behaviour. He said that he was now aware of the triggers that led to his behaviour [redacted]. He now had coping strategies such as walking in the countryside on a regular basis and practising mindfulness.

24. The Registrant called two witnesses. One had been a colleague since 2023 and vouched for the Registrant’s good character and excellent working ability. The other was in good friend who vouched for his good character.

Decision on Grounds

25. Mr Morrison submitted that the matters found proved amounted to a breach of the following HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (pre-August 2024):

9. Be honest and trustworthy

Personal and professional behaviour

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

and the following HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers (pre-September 2023):

2. Be able to practise with the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession

2.2 Understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council

3. Be able to maintain fitness to practise

3.1 Understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct.

26. Mr Morrison submitted that the Registrant acted in a way that fell far short of what would be proper in the circumstances and amounted to misconduct.

27. The Registrant accepted that his actions amounted to misconduct.

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

29. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had breached the Standards of Conduct and Proficiency set out above. The Panel concluded that the dishonest behaviour that had been admitted and found proved had taken place on a repeated basis, had been conducted in a number of different ways, over a significant period of time, and had been for the Registrant’s personal gain. It was the judgement of the Panel that this amounted to a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a registered Radiographer in the circumstances, and amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

30. Mr Morrison submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired, both on the personal and public component, by reason of his misconduct.

31. Mr Morrison accepted that this was not a case where it could be argued that the Registrant had posed, or currently posed, a risk of harm to members of the public. However, the Registrant’s dishonesty had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession and brought the profession into disrepute.

32. Mr. Morrison accepted that the Registrant had repaid the money he had gained through his misconduct. Mr Morrison also accepted that colleagues speak highly of the Registrant, and that there are no issues over his competency as a clinician. Further the Registrant had admitted his actions. However, Mr Morrison submitted that dishonesty is difficult to remediate and that there was a risk that the Registrant would repeat his behaviour in light of the lack of full remediation and the continuing financial pressures faced by the Registrant.

33. The Registrant submitted that he had made significant changes in his life to reduce the likelihood of repetition. He accepted that the possibility of reoffending could not be ruled out but argued that this was unlikely in light of his acceptance of the Allegation and the fact that he had been upfront and candid with his employers. He described measures that he was now taking to ensure that he did not repeat his behaviour.

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

35. In considering the issue of current impairment of fitness practice, the Panel took account of the Registrant’s evidence, both documentary and oral, together with the evidence provided in his documentary bundle and the two character witnesses called to provide oral evidence.

36. The Panel took account of the Registrant’s good character and the evidence it had heard attesting to his ability as a clinician.

37. The Panel accepted that the Registrant’s actions had not posed a risk of harm to the public, and that there was no suggestion that he currently posed such a risk.

38. The Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant had repaid the money that he had wrongly obtained, that he had admitted the allegation at an early opportunity, and that he had shown genuine remorse for his past actions and apologised. Further, he had not repeated his misconduct since the time of its detection in early 2023.

39. The Panel accepted that the Registrant had undertaken some remediation, in the form of repaying the debt, [redacted], reducing the amount of overtime work he undertakes, ensuring that he completes the hours required of him and avoiding staying in hotels by staying with a friend or colleague when required to work away from home.

40. The Panel also took account of the fact that the Registrant appears to have notified his current employer of the existence of the Allegation, albeit it was unclear to the Panel whether he had acted with complete transparency by disclosing the full details of it.

41. However, the Panel took the view that the Registrant’s past dishonesty is difficult to remediate. His behaviour could not be regarded as an isolated event; to the contrary, it had spanned a considerable period of time, from early May 2022 to early January 2023. Nor could it be regarded as a simple form of dishonesty in that it comprised a number of different methods – claiming for working hours that he had not worked; claiming for hotel expenses that he had not incurred; claiming mileage and travel time for journeys he had not made; and claiming for meal expenses on the understanding that he was based at a hotel when in reality he was staying with a friend. The Registrant himself accepted that this behaviour would have continued had it not been identified by a colleague.

42. The Panel concluded that whilst the Registrant had clearly reflected on his misconduct over many months, his thoughts had tended to focus on the impact of the misconduct on himself and how he had tried to deal with it, rather than on its impact on members of the public and the reputation of the profession. Further, he demonstrated limited awareness and reflection on the standards expected by the public and by the HCPC. The Panel accepted that he has demonstrated some evidence of insight, but concluded that this was not complete.

43. Further, the Panel was of the view that the remediation he had evidenced was inadequate. The courses he relied on did not relate to his misconduct. He had not completed training in honesty and integrity, and was unable to demonstrate how he had embedded any such training into his practice. His current practice also requires regular periods away from home.

44. In those circumstances, the Panel concluded it could not be said that it was highly unlikely that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct if permitted to practise unrestricted.

45. Accordingly, it was the judgement of the Panel that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component.

46. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s dishonest misconduct had breached a fundamental tenant of the profession and had brought the profession into disrepute. He had acted dishonestly on a repeated basis, over a significant period of time, using a number of different ways in which to make personal gain. His behaviour only came to an end because he was detected.

47. For those reasons it was the judgement of the Panel that confidence in the profession and maintenance of standards within the profession would be adversely affected if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances.

48. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired on the public component.

49. In conclusion, it was the judgement of the Panel that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on public interest, but not public protection, grounds.

Decision on Sanction

50. Mr Morrison put forward a number of suggested mitigating and aggravating circumstances. He referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Guidance, and in particular the section dealing with short Suspension Orders. He submitted that the choice of sanction was a matter for the Panel, but that the Panel should ensure that the sanction chosen should protect the public interest without being punitive.

51. The Registrant asked the Panel to take into account his frank admission that his misconduct would have continued had it not been detected. He submitted that he had not repeated his actions since the time of the misconduct. Rather, he had commenced his current employment as a locum and had then been given a substantive post. He said that he was a dedicated Radiographer. He welcomed guidance on relevant courses on the topic of honesty. He asked the Panel to bear in mind the adverse effect that sanction would have on his personal life.

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

53. The Panel understood that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive but, in the circumstances of this case, is to protect the wider public interest, which includes the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the regulatory process, and in upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

54. The Panel took account of the HCPC Sanctions Policy. It applied the principle of proportionality, weighing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the wider public interest. It considered the least restrictive sanction first.

55. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was aggravated by the following factors:

• a breach of his employer’s trust;
• a pattern of behaviour that continued over a number of months;
• considerable personal financial gain; and
• cessation only after detection by a colleague.

56. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was mitigated by the following factors:

• previous good character and positive testimonials;
• early admissions;
• genuine remorse and apology;
• a degree of remediation including repaying the debt owed to his previous employer;
• no repetition in over 32 months despite continuing to work away from home;
• no risk of harm to members of the public; and
• personal circumstances, in particular financial pressure and the associated impact on his family.

57. The testimonials the Panel took into account comprised the two character witnesses called to attest to the Registrant’s ability and honesty, together with a written reference from his current line manager who stated that the Registrant had:

“become a very valued member of the team and a real asset to the department, playing a significant role in maintaining the CT service to our patients in a very difficult climate. James has at all times, been completely candid with me, concerning events that have led to him appearing in court. I know he is genuinely remorseful about any previous actions that may have put his moral character into question. I am confident, that, after reflecting on this behaviour, he has learnt from any mistakes made and is determined to make every effort to rehabilitate. Taking all of this into consideration, James is now working in a substantive full time role as a cross sectional radiographer at our new Community diagnostic centre …”.

58. In view of the seriousness of the misconduct, namely the pattern of dishonesty set out in this determination, the Panel concluded that to take No Further Action or to impose a Caution Order would be insufficient to maintain standards and uphold confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. In considering the criteria set out in the HCPC Sanctions Policy, the Panel concluded that it could not be said that the misconduct was minor in nature, or that the Registrant had shown sufficiently developed insight, or that he had undertaken appropriate remediation.

59. The Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order but concluded that conditions would not be workable due to the nature of the misconduct, namely dishonesty, and further that such an order would be insufficient to protect the public interest in light of the seriousness of the misconduct.

60. The Panel considered a Suspension Order.

61. The Panel concluded that confidence in the profession would be upheld, and standards would be maintained, if a period of suspension were to be imposed in the circumstances of this case.

62. In finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired the Panel had concluded that the Registrant’s insight is not yet complete. However, the Panel accepted that he had shown genuine remorse and that his insight is developing. He had admitted his misconduct at an early stage and had been transparent in volunteering that he would have continued with the misconduct had he not been apprehended. He had also demonstrated a degree of transparency with his current employer regarding his past actions. He had not repeated his misconduct despite many months of continued practice, some of which had taken place away from home. He now recognises the triggers for his behaviour and has taken steps to prevent further misconduct in the form of [redacted] reducing his workload and arranging to stay with a friend when away from home rather than booking hotels. He is of previous good character. He is clearly a good clinician who is valued by his current employer.

63. The Panel consulted the Sanctions Policy and found Paragraph 124 to be apposite in the current circumstances:

“Short-term suspensions can also be appropriate in cases where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where further action is required in order to maintain public confidence in our professions”.

64. The Panel gave consideration to a Striking Off Order but concluded that this would be disproportionate in light of the mitigating circumstances, the Registrant’s developing insight and the Registrant’s ability to make a positive contribution to the public through his clinical skills. In reaching its conclusion, the Panel took account of the significant adverse financial and reputational consequences that such an order would have for the Registrant and his family.

65. The Panel considered that a Suspension Order of 4 months’ duration was sufficient to protect the public interest in light of the mitigating features of the case, and the Registrant’s developing insight.

66. Accordingly, it was the judgment of the Panel that the appropriate and proportionate order is a Suspension Order for a period of 4 months.

67. The Panel concluded that a reviewing panel might be assisted by the following:

• Documented evidence of the Registrant’s personal development in the areas of honesty and integrity; and
• a reflective written statement covering the Registrant’s understanding of the HCPC standards that he breached, and how he will apply those standards in future, together with his reflections on the impact of his misconduct on the public and his profession.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of James Fort from the Register for a period of 4 months.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

History of Hearings for James Fort