Mr Andrew P Byrne

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing under Rule 6(1) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) was sent to the Registrant on 31 July 2025 by email and post. The notice included the hearing date and time. It confirmed that the hearing would take place virtually and invited the Registrant to participate, providing details of how to join the virtual hearing.

2. The HCPC Certificate of Registration confirmed the Registrant’s email and postal addresses registered with the HCPC to which the notice letters were sent.

3. The Panel was satisfied that there had been proper service in compliance with the Rules.

Application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant

4. Mr Micklewright, on behalf of the HCPC, referred to an email received from an individual understood to be the Registrant’s wife dated 24 September 2025. This was stated to be sent on the Registrant’s behalf. The email stated that the Registrant would not be present at this hearing. Mr Micklewright also referred to two earlier letters received by the HCPC from the Registrant. The first was a hand-written letter dated 9 March 2025. The second was an email dated 1 July 2025 which had been sent to the HCPC by a third party on his behalf. It was apparent that the Registrant is currently serving his prison sentence. In both communications the Registrant made it clear that he did not intend to be represented in these proceedings.

5. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend or be represented at this hearing. There was no indication of any reason why the Panel should adjourn the hearing. Mr Micklewright submitted that, given the gravity of the allegation and the important public interest in the resolution of the matter, the Panel should proceed with the hearing today in the Registrant’s absence.

Panel decision

6. The Panel considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

7. The Panel referred to Rule 11 of the Rules which provides that where a registrant is neither present nor represented at a hearing, the Panel may proceed with the hearing if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the notice of hearing under Rule 6(1) on the registrant. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was given the appropriate notice of today’s hearing date. He was informed of the powers available to the Panel at this hearing. He was informed of his right to attend the hearing or participate virtually.

8. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence, the Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on proceeding in absence (August 2025) and referred to relevant guidance from the cases of R v Jones (Anthony) [2004] 1 AC 1HL and GMC v Adeogba and GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. The Panel was careful to remember that its discretion under Rule 11 is not unfettered and must be exercised with the utmost caution and with the fairness of the hearing at the forefront of its mind.

9. The Panel noted that the Registrant had communicated with the HCPC through his wife. He is currently serving his custodial sentence in prison. The Registrant’s wife’s email to the HCPC indicated that he was aware of the hearing taking place today and stated that he would not be present. The Panel took into account the indication in his letter of 9 March 2025 and in his e-mail of 1 July 2025 that he does not wish to be represented in this matter. The Registrant has not sought an adjournment for any reason.

10. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to participate in person or to be represented at this hearing. The Panel was satisfied no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment and it was in the public interest that the serious allegation in this matter should proceed and be resolved today.

11. The Panel was satisfied that in the Registrant’s absence it would ensure that the hearing was as fair as possible and it would take into account the submissions in his two communications to the HCPC.

Application for privacy

12. In his letters to the HCPC dated 9 March 2025 and 1 July 2025, the Registrant indicated his request that the nature of his criminal offences should not be made public. He referred to the impact of publication on the interests of his family. He stated that he believed that publication could constitute a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights in terms of respect for his family’s family life and privacy.

13. The Registrant continued that he believed that the continuous checks and supervision to which he would be subject by the police and probation services upon his release from prison would mean that there was no justification for publishing details of his offence on the grounds of reducing the risk to the public.

14. In relation to maintaining the reputation of the Physiotherapy profession, the Registrant stated that his offending behaviour was not related to physiotherapy. He also stated that there had been no media coverage of his case and so currently there was no public link to the profession. The Registrant stated that he recognised that information about his case would be released if anyone made a request to check whether he was on the register, even if the details of the offence were kept private. He stated that he did not have concerns regarding this, but that his request was that the details of his offence were not included, particularly in relation to the internet which is available to the general public, and would remain so in the future, even if subsequently removed.

15. In the Registrant’s further e-mail statement dated 1 July 2025, he reiterated similar points to those made in his earlier letter but stated that he was not requesting that the full hearing should be carried out in private. His request was focused on not disclosing the details of his conviction. The Registrant also stated:

“I have no doubt that you are legally within your rights to disclose the information regarding my conviction now you've given your justification for doing so. This therefore is a repeated plea for your help to spare [my family] furthermore widespread distress. I recognise that I am the cause of that distress. I've torn our life apart, lost my job, my career my business, financial security, my reputation and freedom while being punished with a not insignificant prison sentence. I deserve all that punishment but my [family] do not. Thankfully there were no direct victims to my crime as I was communicating with an undercover police officer. So that being the case and with me in prison the only people that will be impacted by your publishing details of my conviction are [my family].”

Submissions of the HCPC

16. Mr Micklewright acknowledged that the Panel may consider it appropriate to consider the Registrant’s application in his absence at this hearing. The HCPC’s position was that it opposed the application. He reminded the Panel that HCPC proceedings are required to be held in public subject to the exceptions provided for in Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules. He accepted that the Panel could consider an application based on Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to private and family life and that this right could extend to the impact on the Registrant’s family’s private life.

17. Mr Micklewright told the Panel that the Registrant’s criminal case had been considered by the Magistrates and Crown Courts and albeit there may have been no media coverage, the convictions were already in the public domain. There were not known to be any reporting restrictions in place in the criminal case.

18. Mr Micklewright referred to an HCPC determination in relation to an interim order application in the Registrant’s case and noted that this had been held in public. He noted that details of the outcome did not appear to have been published by the HCPC.

19. The HCPC’s submission was that these were very serious offences in which the public and profession would have an interest. Mr Micklewright’s submission was that there was a strong public interest in the hearing being held fully in public and that the Article 8 issues raised by the Registrant did not outweigh that interest.

Panel decision

20. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS practice note, Conducting Hearings in Private. This notes that one of the objectives of regulation is to ensure public confidence in the professions the HCPC regulates and that open justice where hearings are in public promotes transparency and complies with Human Rights Act protections and Convention rights.

21. The Legal Assessor advised that Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules provides HCPC hearings are usually held in public. This is an important principle in the interests of open justice and the transparency and accountability of HCPC proceedings.
There is provision for the Panel to hold part or all of a hearing in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) if the Panel is satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the Registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence, or any patient or client.

22. In relation to an application for privacy, the Panel should be mindful, as per the case of Miller v GMC [2013] EWHC 1934 Admin, that public hearings are the default position and if a panel decides that any aspect should be in private, it should depart from the principle of a public hearing to the least possible extent.
Further, the onus of satisfying the Panel that the default position should be departed from rests upon the party seeking it and the Panel should look for an evidential basis satisfying it that such a departure was warranted.

23. The Registrant’s request made reference to Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life. This is a qualified right. The HCPC accepted that it could extend to the interests of the private life of the Registrant’s family. The Panel would need to consider whether the grounds advanced by the Registrant outweighed the public interest in a public hearing.

24. The Panel gave careful consideration to the Registrant’s request and bore in mind the important principle that HCPC proceedings should normally take place in public. It bore in mind that the onus of satisfying it that this principle should be departed from rests on the party seeking it, in this case, the Registrant.

25. The Panel took into account that it had been advised that the criminal proceedings have already been in the public domain and to that extent the details have already been made public.

26. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s family are not directly involved in the Registrant’s case or in his criminal offending, although it acknowledged the impact that publicity may have upon them. The Panel noted that beyond the Registrant’s two letters to the HCPC, it has not been provided with any evidence in support of the Registrant’s request, for example evidence in relation to the impact of publicity on the interests of his family.

27. The Panel was mindful that Article 8 of the ECHR is a qualified right. The Panel considered there is a very strong public interest in HCPC proceedings taking place in public in the interest of open justice and transparency. It considered that the profession and the wider public have an interest in understanding how allegations of this gravity are dealt with by the HCPC. In this case, the Panel concluded that the requirement for the hearing to take place in public in the public interest was not outweighed by the interest of the Registrant’s family in the matters being kept private. For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel did not consider it would be practicable to hear part of the hearing in private to address the Registrant’s concern.

Background

28. The Registrant referred himself to the HCPC in an e-mail dated 5 August 2024 in which he stated that he had been “charged by the police for crimes of a sexual nature” and that he recognised that this would prevent him from working as a Physiotherapist in the future.

29. The HCPC obtained a certificate of conviction from Preston Crown Court dated 3 December 2024 confirming that on 19 July 2024, the Registrant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the offences set out in the allegation (above) and was sentenced on 10 October 2024.

30. The HCPC obtained a copy of the sentencing remarks of HHJ O'Brien from the criminal proceedings at Preston Crown Court. These confirmed that the Registrant pleaded guilty and was convicted of two offences of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child; arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence; and attempting to cause a child to watch a sexual act. HHJ O’Brien noted that neither victim of the offences was really a 14-year-old girl.

31. The sentence imposed in the criminal proceedings was (in summary):

- 3.5 years imprisonment (in total);
- Notification requirement to register with the police in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from 19 July 2024;
- To register with the police indefinitely;
- Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) made until further order;
- To pay statutory surcharge of £228.00.

32. In relation to aggravating factors, in her sentencing remarks HHJ O’Brien identified that some of the offending occurred whilst the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol.

33. In relation to mitigation, the Judge noted that the Registrant had no previous convictions and was of positive good character. The Judge stated:

“There is clearly remorse. Counsel has told me today that with the work you have done you have recognised that what you have done could have ruined someone's life forever if these were in fact real children, as you believed they were, and that this demonstrated some insight and of course that is why these offences are treated so seriously by the court. You have demonstrated a willingness and ability to work on the causes of the offending with the psychological work that you've already done with Safer Lives and CBT. You had poor mental health, both at the time of commission of these offences and currently, and that is going to impact on you going to prison and your ability to manage that and the fact that you have never served a custodial sentence, that is going to be a huge shock to you.

34. The Judge stated:

“The pre-sentence report deals with dangerousness. It states that you represent a risk of sexual harm towards female children. Given the length of sentence an extended sentence cannot be passed, but in any event I have considered the nature of the offending which is very serious, but also the work that you've done to address your sexual interest in children yourself and the safeguard of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order and take the view that the statutory dangerousness test would not be met.”

HCPC’s submissions

35. Mr Micklewright reminded the Panel that by virtue of Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules the certified copy of the certificate of conviction was admissible as proof of the conviction and the facts on which it was based. He submitted that the Panel should therefore find the facts proved.

Decision on Facts

36. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It bore in mind that the burden of proof in HCPC proceedings is on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.

37. The Panel had sight of the certificate of conviction from Preston Crown Court dated 3 December 2024 confirming that the Registrant was convicted on 19 July 2024 and sentenced imposed on 10 October 2024. In accordance with Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules, the signed certificate of conviction constitutes proof of the conviction.

38. The Panel was satisfied that the facts alleged in paragraph 1(a) to (d) of the allegation were proved.

HCPC submissions on ground and impairment

39. Mr Micklewright’s submission was that the ground of conviction under the Health Professions Order 2001 (“the Order”) was made out by virtue of the Panel having found the conviction proved.

40. In respect of impairment Mr Micklewright referred to the relevant legal principles in relation to current impairment and referred the Panel to the HCPTS practice notes Finding Impairment of Fitness to Practise and Conviction and Caution Allegations.

41. Mr Micklewright reminded the Panel that the conviction involved four separate offences relating to children whom the Registrant believed to be around 14 years old. The conviction was very serious The Registrant had pleaded guilty and was sentenced on that basis. Mr Micklewright made reference to the sentencing remarks of HHJ O'Brien at Preston Crown Court. She noted that features of the offences involving pre-planning, lies about age and a significant age disparity. She noted that the offence involved an element of grooming. The only aggravating feature the Judge identified that some of the offending occurred whilst the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol.

42. HHJ O'Brien took into account as mitigation the Registrant’s previous good character and the work he had undertaken since these events. She said that he recognised that he could have ruined someone's life forever and expressed remorse.

43. Mr Micklewright noted that the Judge was satisfied that the test of necessity for the imposition of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) was required for a period of 16 years to cover the period when young children might be visiting the registrant’s children.

44. Mr Micklewright submitted that the Registrant presents a significant continuing risk to young children and that if he returns to practice he would likely to come into contact with such individuals. He submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the personal component.

45. Mr Micklewright also submitted that that these were very serious offences for any individual, not least a health professional who holds a position of trust and that the Panel should find that the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the public element of fitness to practise.

Panel Decision on ground and impairment

46. The Panel noted that allegation in this case is based on the Registrant’s criminal conviction which it has found proved at the facts stage. The Panel concluded that the statutory ground of conviction under Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Order was therefore established.

47. The Panel concluded these matters amounted to a breach of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics at Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

48. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired by his conviction. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

49. The Panel kept in mind that the question of impairment is a matter for its own judgement. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment, which confirms that the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish a registrant for past acts or omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise.

50. The Panel had regard to the conduct of the Registrant, the nature, circumstances and gravity of the findings and the critically important public policy issues, in particular the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

51. In considering its decision, the Panel noted that the Registrant’s conviction involved offences relating to sexual misconduct of a very serious nature towards what he believed to be two girls aged approximately fourteen. There was therefore repetition. The Panel note that the sentencing Judge referred to a degree of pre-planning and that the offences involved an element of grooming.

52. The conviction resulted in the Registrant receiving a significant custodial sentence which he is currently serving, indicating the seriousness with which it was regarded by the sentencing Judge. She took into account in accordance with the sentencing guidelines that there were in fact no real victims. The Judge found that the Registrant presented a risk of harm to young females which she took into account in deciding that it was necessary to impose an SHPO for a period of sixteen years.

53. In respect of the personal element of impairment, the Panel bore in mind that criminal conduct of the type in question is attitudinal in nature and is accepted to be difficult to remediate. The Judge mentioned that the offences indicated a sexual interest in children.

54. The Panel had been presented with no remediation evidence for this hearing. However, the Panel noted the references by HHJ O’Brien to the pre-sentence report indicating the work the Registrant had undertaken in terms of CBT and Safer Lives.

55. From HHJ O’Brien’s sentencing remarks and the Registrant’s correspondence with the HCPC, the Panel accepted that he had shown some insight, in that he appeared to understand the grave impact of his offending behaviour and had expressed remorse. However, the Panel had no evidence before it to indicate that the Registrant had reflected on the impact of his actions upon the profession of Physiotherapy, on public confidence in the profession or on the wider public interest.

56. The Panel took into account the comments of HHJ O’Brien regarding the continuing risk posed by the Registrant to young females. The Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct is highly unlikely to be repeated and concluded the Registrant continues to present a risk of harm to patients and the public. The Panel concluded that his fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the personal component.

57. In relation to the public component of current impairment, the Panel referred very serious nature of the Registrant’s criminal convictions. The Panel considered that an HCPC registrant who holds such a conviction has failed to uphold the standards of conduct set by the HCPC and has undoubtedly undermined public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator. The Panel concluded that wider public confidence would be undermined in this case if a finding of current impairment were not made. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of the public component.

58. In relation to risk, the Panel considered the four factors which indicate impairment of fitness to practise, as set out in the Report of the Fifth Shipman Inquiry and identified in the legal advice it had received. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant presented a risk to patients, had brought the Physiotherapy profession into disrepute and breached a fundamental tenet of the profession by his criminal sexual behaviour towards what he believed to be two female children. The Panel further considered that, although the offences in question were not offences of dishonesty, the Registrant has acted in such a way that his integrity can no longer be relied upon.

59. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of both the personal and public components of current impairment.

The HCPC’s submissions on Sanction

60. Mr Micklewright stated that the HCPC’s submission was that striking off was the only appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case. He referred the Panel to the principles relevant to its consideration of sanctions in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. He reminded the Panel that a sanction is not designed to punish the Registrant twice but is to protect the public. He referred to the requirement for the Panel to take a proportionate approach to the consideration of sanction.

61. Mr Micklewright drew the attention of the Panel to sections in the Sanctions Policy relevant to allegations involving sexual misconduct and criminal conviction matters.

62. Mr Micklewright reminded the Panel of relevant caselaw, including the guidance from the case of CRHP V General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87, to the effect that (in summary) as a general principle, where a registrant is still subject to the sentence of a criminal court then they should not normally be allowed to return to unrestricted practice. In the more recent case of PSA for Health and Social Care v General Dental Council (Patel) [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin) it was noted that the guidance was not a fixed rule but must bend to the overarching requirement to impose a sanction which was just proportionate and protected the public.

63. Mr Micklewright’s submission was that the available sanctions less than striking off would not be sufficient to address the significant gravity of the criminal offence in this case. He addressed the factors set out in respect of each sanction in the Sanctions Policy. In relation to suspension, Mr Micklewright reminded the Panel that the maximum period for which suspension could be imposed was 12 months, whereas the Registrant was currently serving a criminal sentence of 3.5 years, whether he remains in custody or, after he is released from prison, on licence.

64. Mr Micklewright submitted that the factors indicating that suspension may be appropriate are not present in this case, reminding the Panel that at the impairment stage it was not able to conclude that the conduct was highly unlikely to be repeated. Further, given the SHPO, it appeared unlikely that the Registrant would be able to resolve or remedy his past failings.

65. In relation to striking off, Mr Micklewright acknowledged this is a sanction of last resort, but his submission was that the circumstances of this case, which involve sexual misconduct and abuse of children, fell well within the scope of justifying a striking off order and this was the only appropriate sanction order.

The Registrant’s submissions

66. In his letter to the HCPC of 9 March 2025 the Registrant stated that he believed that the outcome of the hearing was inevitable. He stated “My wrongdoing is self-evident and my offending behaviour means that I'm not fit to practice so must be struck off”. He did not provide any additional evidence for the HCPC hearing.

Panel Decision on Sanction

67. The Panel took account of the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and those of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and the practice note, Conviction and Caution Allegations.

68. In considering sanction, the Panel was reminded that a sanction is not intended to be punitive. However, a sanction may be necessary in the public interest and may have a punitive effect. Where, as in this case, the allegation concerned a criminal conviction, the purpose was not to punish the Registrant twice for the criminal offence but was to protect the public and address the public interest.

69. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the guidance from the cases of Fleischmann and Patel, which are reflected at paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy.

70. The Panel bore in mind throughout that any sanction it may decide to impose must be proportionate, that is, it must only restrict the Registrant’s right to practise to the extent necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

71. The Panel was mindful throughout that the HCPC’s overriding objective is to protect the public. A panel must consider the risk the Registrant may pose in the future and determine what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

72. The Registrant has been convicted of sexual offences. In considering sanction the Panel had regard to the sentence imposed by the criminal court. However, it was mindful that, as advised by the practice note on Conviction and Caution Allegations (paragraph 18), the criminal sentence is not a definitive guide to the seriousness of the allegation.

73. In this case, the Panel concluded that the sexual offences of which the Registrant had been convicted were very serious. Had the victims been real female children serious harm would have been caused to them. Whilst the sentence imposed in the criminal proceedings was not determinative of the appropriate regulatory sanction, the Panel reminded itself of the remarks of the sentencing judge. She determined that in addition to the custodial sentence imposed, an SHPO was required for a sixteen-year period on the basis that the Registrant presented a continuing risk to female children. The Registrant was also made subject to the Sex Offenders notification requirement for an indefinite period.

74. The Panel referred to the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy concerning serious cases. The types of case referred to included cases involving sexual misconduct (paragraphs 76 and 77). The Panel noted that sexual misconduct is a very serious matter which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. Because of the gravity of this type of case, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct it is likely to impose a more serious sanction (paragraph 76). Further, sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession (paragraph 77).

75. The Panel concluded that all of these issues were engaged in relation to its findings in this case. The Panel’s conclusion, applying the Sanctions Policy guidance, was that the Registrant’s case clearly fell into the category of serious cases.

76. In relation to mitigating factors, the Registrant had not provided any information for this Panel other than his correspondence to the HCPC. The Panel took into account the matters identified by the sentencing Judge in the criminal case, although this evidence was not directly before this Panel.

77. The Panel considered that the following mitigating factors were present:

a. The Registrant had no fitness to practise history and in the criminal proceedings the sentencing Judge stated that he was of previous good character;

b. The Judge had referred to the Registrant’s mental health issues although this Panel had not further details;

c. There was a plea of guilty in the criminal proceedings;

d. The sentencing Judge considered that the Registrant had shown remorse and “demonstrated a willingness and ability to work on the causes of the offending with the psychological work you’ve already done with Safer Lives and CBT”

78. The Panel took these factors into account when considering sanction. The Panel concluded it could give limited weight to the mitigating factors, most of which were only raised before the criminal court, and was mindful that mitigation is of considerably less significance in regulatory proceedings where protection of the public is the overarching consideration. The Panel concluded that the gravity of the aggravating factors in this case far outweighed the mitigating factors.

79. The Panel considered whether it was necessary to impose a sanction. The Panel had in mind that the allegations proved involved serious criminal conduct and that its decision must uphold public trust and confidence in the profession. It considered the sanctions in ascending level of severity in order to ensure its approach was proportionate.

80. The Panel considered that the following aggravating factors were present:

a. The Judge noted as an aggravating factor that some of the offending took place while the Registrant was under the influence of alcohol;
b. There was limited evidence of insight. Whilst the Registrant had expressed remorse for his offending and showed insight into the gravity of his offending, this focused primarily upon the impact of his actions on himself and his family and showed little understanding of its impact on the public and the profession.

Mediation or No Action

81. The Panel concluded that in this case, neither mediation nor taking no action would be appropriate. The Panel determined that due to the gravity of its findings in this case a sanction was necessary in the public interest.

Caution Order

82. The Panel first considered the factors in the Sanctions Policy in relation to a Caution Order. It concluded that the issues in this case were not minor in nature. This was not an isolated matter, in that it concerned sexual misconduct. Limited insight had been shown by the Registrant. The Panel had concluded that there remained a risk of repetition and that the Registrant continues to pose a risk of harm to the public. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order was not sufficient or appropriate
Conditions of Practice
83. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Registrant is currently serving a custodial sentence. Even were he not in prison, the Panel concluded that it would not be possible to formulate conditions which would address the concerns arising from the criminal misconduct.

84. Most significantly, the Panel’s view was that conditions of practice would not reflect the gravity of the sexual misconduct findings in this case, nor would such an order address the concerns regarding the wider public interest.

85. Referring to paragraph 109 of the Sanctions Policy, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation or that it was unlikely to be repeated. These factors indicated that a Conditions of Practice Order was not appropriate in this case.

Suspension

86. The Panel carefully considered whether an order of Suspension would be sufficient to address the public protection and public interest concerns in this case.

87. The Panel referred to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. The concerns represent serious breaches of the HCPC Standards. The Registrant has shown only limited insight. The Panel did not consider the concerns were unlikely to be repeated. There has not been satisfactory evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.

88. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would not provide adequate protection to the public or the public interest, nor would it maintain public confidence in the Physiotherapy profession.

Striking Off Order

89. The Panel considered whether a striking off order was required. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has been convicted of serious criminal offences involving sexual misconduct towards victims he believed to be female children. The Registrant had demonstrated limited insight or remediation. Were the Registrant not in currently prison he would remain a continuing risk to patients and the public.

90. The Registrant is currently serving a 3.5-year custodial sentence following the imposition of his criminal sentence in October 2024. After that period, he will remain subject to other orders of the criminal court, the police notification requirement and the SHPO which is to remain in place for sixteen years.

91. The Panel took into account in this case paragraph 82 of the Sanctions Policy which states that where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the panel should not allow the registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed. Paragraph 85 of the Sanctions Policy states that although inclusion on the sex offenders database is not a punishment, it serves to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. The policy states that a panel should normally regard it as incompatible with the HCPC's obligation to protect the public to allow a registrant to remain in, or return to, unrestricted practice while they are on the sex offenders database.

92. The Panel was mindful of the guidance from the cases of PSA for Health and Social Care v NMC (Jalloh) [2023] EWHC 3331 (Admin) and Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, to the effect that the reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. The essential issue remains maintaining public confidence in the professions. Matters of personal mitigation (which do not concern the seriousness of the underlying conduct or its impact upon public confidence) are of less weight.

93. The Panel considered the proportionality of its decision. It took into account the Registrant’s submissions about the detrimental impact on his financial and family circumstances.

94. However, the Panel concluded that any lesser sanction than a Striking Off Order would not address the issues of wider public interest and public confidence in the Physiotherapy profession and in the regulatory process. The Panel therefore concluded that these issues outweighed Registrant’s interests in this case.

95. Taking account of all of these matters, the Panel concluded that the sexual misconduct found proved at this hearing was fundamentally incompatible with registration as a health professional on the HCPC Register and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a Striking Off Order.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Andrew P Byrne from the Register on the date 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 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.

Interim Order

Application

Mr Micklewright made an application under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001 for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period. He submitted that whilst the Registrant is currently in prison, if he were released, he would be able to return to unrestricted practice. If the Registrant were to appeal against the Panel’s substantive decision, that appeal could take many months to be resolved.

Given the risk to the public and the public interest in this case, Mr Mickelwright’s submission was that an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest.

Decision

The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It bore in mind that an interim order in these circumstances is discretionary. The Panel must consider whether an interim order is required, applying the test set out in Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and if it so decides, must act proportionately. This means balancing the public interest with the interests of the Registrant and imposing the lowest order which will adequately protect the public.

The Panel considered the issue of proportionality and balanced the interests of the Registrant with the public interest. The Panel had determined to impose a substantive Suspension Order. Given the gravity of the issues and the sanction imposed, the Panel considered it would be inconsistent not to impose an immediate interim order of suspension to address the residual risk and public interest issues pending the taking effect of its substantive order of Strike Off.

The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be appropriate but concluded that conditions which would address the Panel’s concerns could not be formulated. Accordingly, the Panel determined that an interim order of suspension was necessary in order to protect the public and in the wider public interest.

The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate duration of the interim suspension order was 18 months, as the interim order would continue to be required pending the resolution of an appeal in the event of the Registrant giving notice of an appeal with the 28-day period.

Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.
This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mr Andrew P Byrne