HCPTS |

Profession: Physiotherapist

Registration Number: PH114002

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 31/10/2025 End: 17:00 03/11/2025

Location: Virtual, via video conference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Struck off

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

Allegation

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH114002):

1. On 17 July 2023, at Bolton Crown Court, you were convicted of:

Offence: Produce controlled drug of Class B – cannabis

Offence date: 05 Dec 2022

On 05/12/2022 at Bolton County of Greater Manchester produced a quantity of cannabis, a controlled drug of class B, in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Contrary to section 4(2)(a) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

2. On or after 3 March 2023, you failed to inform the HCPC that you had been charged with the criminal offence referred to in Particular 1.

3. On or after 17 July 2023 you failed to inform the HCPC that you had been convicted of the criminal offence referred to in Particular 1.

4. You marked ‘no’ in response to the question ‘change relating to good character?’ on your HCPC registration renewal form which you signed and submitted on 20 February 2024, when you knew answering ‘no’ was incorrect, as you had not informed the HCPC of your criminal charge and subsequent conviction referred to above.

5. Your conduct set out at Particulars 2, 3, and/or 4 above was dishonest.

6.The matters set out at Particulars 2 – 5 above constitute misconduct.

7. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction and/or misconduct.

Finding

Preliminary matters:

Service

1. The Panel noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’) provide at paragraph 3(1)(b) that notice may be served on a registrant by posting it to their address, as it appears in the register, or sending it to an electronic mail address, provided by the registrant for communications. Paragraph 6(2) of the Rules confirms that at least 28 days notice of a hearing must be provided to a registrant.

2. The Panel reviewed a 50 page Service Bundle which contained a notice of hearing, sent to the Registrant on 30 September 2025 via email at 15:47, and an extract of the Register showing the contact details provided by the Registrant and held by the HCPC. It also received legal advice from the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied, and was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Service of Documents’.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been duly served upon the Registrant, via his email address, more than 28 days before the hearing. It was therefore content that the HCPC had discharged its duty to ensure that the Registrant had been afforded an opportunity to appear before it and be heard, as set out at Article 31(15) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (‘the Order’). The Panel determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected.

Proceeding in absence

4. The Presenting Officer invited the Panel to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. He referred the Panel to the brief communications with the Registrant which demonstrated that the notice of hearing and supporting documents and been received. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the Registrant confirmed that he was not currently in the UK and wished to be removed from the Register. The Registrant had not requested an adjournment or to have representation at the hearing and was aware that he could attend the hearing remotely from abroad. In the circumstances, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Panel was entitled to find that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings and therefore that the hearing should proceed in his absence. He also reminded the Panel that registrants should not be able to frustrate the regulatory process by non-attendance at hearings.

5. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor, which it applied, and had regard to the practice notes provided by the HCPTS in relation to proceeding in the absence of the Registrant. It noted the contents of the 25 page ‘Proceeding in absence’ bundle, which included the following emails from the Registrant:

a. 18 December 2024 – “I’m removing myself from the register”;

b. 14 May 2025 – “I am no longer a resident of the uk and am currently living abroad. I have obtained residency status elsewhere and will no longer return to the UK”;

c. 22 August 2025 – “I’m no longer a uk resident either and have given up Uk citizenship”;

d. 19 September 2025 – “I’m out of country longer a uk resident or citizen”;

e. 23 September 2025 – “I’m travelling currently... I’m a citizen of Bangladesh as it stands at the moment. I have rescinded my British nationality”.

6. Having determined that good service of notice of the hearing had been effected by the HCPTS, the Panel carefully considered all of the circumstances of the case to inform its assessment of the fairness to the HCPC, the public and the Registrant in respect of whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. It noted that the Registrant was informed, via an email of 19 September 2025, of the provisional hearing date and invited to tell the HCPTS if this date was problematic for him. The notice of hearing dated 30 September 2025 then informed the Registrant that the hearing could proceed in his absence if proper notice was given of the hearing.

7. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of the date, time, location and purpose of the meeting as required by the Rules. It was also satisfied that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to engage the Registrant in the proceedings. The email correspondence provided to the Panel indicated that the Registrant was informed that he could participate in the hearing from abroad. The Panel noted that the Registrant appears to consistently respond to regulatory communications with comments that he has rescinded his UK citizenship and is no longer in the country, perhaps wrongly believing this absolves him from any obligation to engage in the regulatory process.

8. The Registrant was, in the Panel’s view, maintaining limited communication with the regulator but not engaging in the regulatory process in a meaningful way. There had been no request for an adjournment by the Registrant, nor had he expressed an interest in being represented at the hearing. There was no indication that the Registrant would attend the hearing on a future date in the event that the hearing was adjourned.

9. In considering fairness to the HCPC and the public when making its decision whether to proceed with the hearing or not, the Panel noted that the HCPC attended the hearing, with two witnesses, and was in a position to proceed. The Panel considered that the steps taken to secure the Registrant’s attendance were reasonable in all the circumstances.

10. The Panel gave careful consideration to the prejudice that may be caused to the Registrant by the matter proceeding in his absence but was content that it would test the HCPC’s case in any event when forming any judgement, thereby mitigating any disadvantage as much as possible. It was mindful of the practice note issued by the HCPTS in respect of ‘Unrepresented Registrants’ and the fact that registrants should not be able to frustrate the efficient administration of regulatory matters by simply not engaging in the proceedings. There was no indication before the Panel that the Registrant had any desire or intention to engage with the regulatory process at this point or in the future.

11. In the circumstances, the Panel determined that the public interest favoured the proceedings continuing in the absence of the Registrant and outweighed the potential detriment this may cause to the Registrant. The HCPC was in a position to proceed with witnesses in attendance while the Registrant has not indicated that he wished to attend, or be represented at, the hearing. It was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Conflict of interest

12. Upon the Presenting Officer addressing the Panel in relation to sanction, and referencing in detail two other regulatory investigations in respect of the Registrant, one of which resulted in an interim order being imposed, the registrant panel member identified that she had in fact sat on interim hearings concerning those other fitness to practise matters as part of an Investigating Committee. She told the Panel that when booked for this substantive hearing, she had queried with HCPTS the name of the Registrant but had been assured that there was no conflict. She had not been supplied with the Registrant’s registration number to be able to compare it and therefore accepted the booking. Only when she heard the detail of the other matters did she realise it was the same person.

13. The Panel received legal advice in respect of the potential conflict of interest to the effect that the decisions made up to and including impairment were not tainted by any actual conflict of interest given the Registrant Panel member was not aware that the Registrant was the same. Once this became apparent to her, she flagged the same, discussed it with the Panel and sought advice. Given the late stage of the proceedings, and the findings made to date by the Panel, the appropriate course of action would be to deal with sanction and conclude the proceedings. It would be disproportionate and wasteful of scarce public resources to adjourn the hearing at this point in anticipation of a potential challenge to the conduct of the hearing. In the event that the Registrant, the HCPC or any other interested party was concerned about the conduct of the case, this could be dealt with after the hearing. If the hearing was adjourned to explore the issue of potential conflict of interest, but it was agreed there was no actual conflict, the Panel would have needlessly delayed the outcome.

14. The advice provided to the Panel was repeated in the hearing and the Presenting Officer’s view sought. He confirmed that he did not object to the Panel concluding the proceedings. Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to consider the sanction to impose upon the Registrant.

Background and undisputed facts:

15. The Registrant trained as a Physiotherapist between 2014 and 2017 at Manchester Metropolitan University. He registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist on 26 October 2017, indicating that he was working with the “Rapid Assessment Team of Lancashire Care Foundation”. His application form disclosed previous convictions, and his Disclosure and Barring Service enhanced certification confirmed that he was working with Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and had the following cautions or convictions:

a. 6 June 2003 – Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (caution);

b. 17 August 2010:

i. driving while disqualified;

ii. using vehicle while uninsured;

iii. failing to surrender to custody at the appointed time;

c. 22 January 2016 – depositing waste without a permit

16. The Registrant’s registration with the HCPC was renewed on 18 April 2018, 19 February 2020 and 4 March 2022 without issue.

17. On 20 February 2024 the Registrant submitted a further renewal application to the HCPC indicating that he continued to practice, had no change of circumstances in relation to his good character or health and continued to meet the required Standards of Proficiency. His registration was renewed on 6 March 2024.

18. On 8 May 2024 the HCPC was notified by its lawyers that the Registrant had been charged with drug related offences on 3 March 2023, and was convicted on 17 July 2023.

19. The HCPC made enquiries in relation to the report and confirmed that the Registrant was charged as follows:

“On 05/12/2022 at Bolton County of Greater Manchester produced a quantity of cannabis, a controlled drug of Class B, in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Contrary to section 4(2)(a) and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”

and, having entered a guilty plea at Wigan Magistrates Court on 17 July 2023, was sentenced on 14 August 2023 at Bolton Crown Court to:

a. “Suspended imprisonment 16 months, wholly suspended for 24 months; [supervision period 12 months];

b. Rehabilitation activity required [maximum 30 days];

c. Unpaid work requirement [180 hours within 12 months];

d. Forfeiture and destruction [cannabis plants and cultivation paraphernalia forfeited and destroyed];

e. Victim surcharge of £187 [to be paid in full by 11 September 2023]”.

20. The HCPC received no notification of either the charge or conviction from the Police, the Registrant or any employer of the Registrant.

Submission on Facts:

21. The Panel listened carefully to the submissions of the Presenting Officer, who directed its attention to the Certificate of Conviction issued by Bolton Crown Court, which confirmed a guilty plea was indicated on 17 July 2023, and the transcript of the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Walsh. The Presenting Officer noted that the Judge commented that “a significant amount of work had been done at your home address to enable considerable quantities of cannabis to be cultivated.” and that the cannabis was being cultivated for onward supply to others. He submitted that the Panel was entitled to find the conviction proved as a result of the evidence provided in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules.

22. In respect of Particular 2, the Presenting Officer referred the Panel to the postal requisition issued by Greater Manchester Police confirming the nature of the charge against the Registrant, together with an email confirming that the charge was dated 3 March 2023. He reminded the Panel that Witness RM told it that the Registrant was expected to inform his regulator that he had been charged with an offence as soon as possible after the Registrant became aware of the charge. Witness RM had checked the HCPC records but had been unable to find any confirmation that the Registrant had informed the HCPC that he had been arrested or charged with an offence. The Presenting Officer directed the Panel to Standard 9.5 of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics which applies to all registrants regulated by the HCPC.

23. The situation in respect of Particular 3 was also that Witness RM was unable to find any evidence that the Registrant had reported his conviction or sentence to the HCPC. The Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant was present at the initial court hearing and the sentencing and therefore was aware of the charge and the sentence, but chose not to inform his regulator of them. Particular 3 was also therefore proved on the balance of probability in the Presenting Officer’s submission.

24. In respect of Particular 4, it was the HCPC’s case that the Registrant logged in to his regulatory account to input his renewal application, answering all of the questions posed to him, on 20 February 2024. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the Registrant ticked ‘No’ in response to the question as to whether there had been a change relating to his good character. He submitted that the Registrant knew, or ought to have known, that he should have answered ‘Yes’ to this question as a result of the criminal conviction in July 2023, and disclosed the existence of the conviction. He did not. Witness AM explained to the Panel that Multi Factor Authentication meant it would be very hard for someone other than the Registrant to have logged on and completed the renewal application. The Presenting Officer confirmed that the Registrant had not asserted that anyone else had competed the renewal application for him and the Panel could therefore conclude that the information provided had come from the Registrant. Further, the Registrant had not, in the Presenting Officer’s submission, disputed the charge, conviction or his failure to declare the same to the regulator.

25. Allegation 5 related to the issue of dishonesty, which the Presenting Officer submitted was an inference the Panel would need to draw from the evidence. He confirmed that the test of dishonesty is to assess what the Registrant’s genuine belief and understanding is and then to consider whether that can be said to be honest by the standards of the ordinary objective person. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that the Registrant was aware that he had been charged and attended Court to enter his guilty plea. He knew that he had a duty to report such matters to the regulator. This was, in the Presenting Officer’s submission, a fundamental tenet of being registered with the HCPC. Further, the Registrant was aware, from his application for registration and subsequent renewals, that the regulator is interested in matters relating to character. Information available to registrants as to what the regulator may want to be informed about was included in the bundle and included contact details for the fitness to practice team of the HCPC. The Registrant knew, or should have known, that his declaration was wrong and therefore dishonest. He benefited from failing to make an accurate declaration by not having any restriction placed on his practice. The Presenting Officer submitted that this conduct is dishonest by the standards of ordinary honest people and undermines the proper regulation of the profession and the maintenance of professional standards.

Decision on Disputed Facts:

26. The Panel received evidence, under affirmation, from two witnesses employed by the HCPC:

a. RM – in respect of particular 1, 2, 3 and 5

b. AM – in respect of particulars 4 and 5

and had regard to the documents within the 143 page hearing bundle, which included the witness statements and exhibits. It reflected that it had not been provided with any submissions on behalf of the Registrant as to the particulars alleged against him.

27. Legal advice was provided to the Panel by the Legal Assessor, which it accepted and applied. The Panel carefully considered the documentary evidence provided to it and had regard to the practice notes to which it had been referred or were otherwise available to it. It was mindful that it was obliged to approach the consideration of an allegation sequentially, determining firstly whether the facts set out in the allegation are proved, then whether those facts amount to the statutory ground set out in the allegation, and if so, whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

28. Given that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, and had not offered any explanation for either the conduct giving rise to the particulars or his failure to attend the hearing, the Panel also had regard to the advice provided by the Legal Assessor in relation to adverse inferences and the Practice Note entitled “Evidence”. It noted that registrants may choose not to give evidence in fitness to practise proceedings, but that this can, in some circumstances, be taken into account when considering the extent to which there is a justifiable explanation for some or all of the facts alleged against the registrant. The circumstances panels are to have regard to were outlined in the case of R (Kuzmin) v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 2129 as follows:

a. Has a prima facie case been established by the HCPC to which the Registrant may be invited to respond?

b. Has the Registrant been informed that an adverse inference may be drawn from his absence from the hearing and failure to supply an explanation for his conduct?

c. Is there a reasonable explanation (contextual, cultural or medical) for the Registrant not giving evidence?

d. Are there any other circumstances which would render the drawing of an adverse inference unfair?

29. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had established a prima facie case against the Registrant, and noted that the notice of hearing, sent to the Registrant on 30 September 2025, informed him that adverse inferences may be drawn if he did not engage with the regulatory process. Despite this, the Registrant has only informed his regulator that he is no longer a UK citizen, is not in the country and wishes to be removed from the Register. He did not take up the offer to attend the hearing remotely. The Panel did not accept the Registrant travelling as a valid explanation for his non-attendance at the hearing. The Registrant clearly had access to his emails and therefore the internet. All parties to the hearing would be attending remotely and arrangements could be made to help the Registrant attend the hearing and give evidence.

30. Further, the Panel appreciated it would need to consider what weight to attach to any inference as part of its overall assessment of the evidence before it, and bear in mind that adverse inferences are not determinative of allegations but rather a factor to take into account when considering whether the facts alleged are proved to the required civil standard of proof.

31. In determining whether an allegation is “well founded” or “proved”, the Panel was required to decide firstly whether the HCPC, which has the burden of persuasion in relation to the facts alleged, has discharged that burden.

Particular 1: PROVED

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH114002): On 17 July 2023, at Bolton Crown Court, you were convicted of: a. Offence: Produce controlled drug of Class B – cannabis, Offence date: 05 Dec 2022, On 05/12/2022 at Bolton County of Greater Manchester produced a quantity of cannabis, a controlled drug of class B, in contravention of section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Contrary to section 4(2)(a) of and Schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

32. The Panel was mindful that evidence a person has been convicted of an offence is generally admissible in civil proceedings as proof that they have committed that offence. They should not therefore ‘go behind’ a conviction. In this instance, the documentation from Bolton Crown Court entitled ‘Certificate of Conviction’ confirmed that the Registrant pleaded guilty to the office on 17 July 2023 and was sentenced for it on 14 August 2024. This was sufficient, in the Panel’s view, to prove the conviction on the balance of probability.

Particular 2: PROVED

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH114002): On or after 3 March 2023, you failed to inform the HCPC that you had been charged with the criminal offence referred to in Particular 1.

33. The Panel heard from Witness RM, a Case Manager in the HCPC’s Fitness to Practice team who provided evidence in respect of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics for registered professionals, in particular Standard 9.5. This requires registrants to inform the HCPC if they have been charged with a criminal offence. RM also explained the guidance available to registrants on the HCPC’s website in relation to making self-referrals, and the process of opening a new fitness to practice case. They told the Panel “I have reviewed the HCPC’s FtP Case Management System and I can confirm that there is no record of the Registrant making a self-referral between 3 March 2023 and May 2024 to inform the HCPC that he had been charged, or thereafter, convicted… If the Registrant had contacted the HCPC by phone, post, email or online to inform the HCPC of his charge and/or conviction before 8 May 2024 … there would be a record of this on the FtP case management system”. The Panel found the evidence given by Witness RM to be objective, factual and directly relevant to Particular 2.

34. There was no evidence before the Panel from the Registrant to either explain what steps he took after he was charged, or why he did not take any steps in respect of his regulated status. The Panel was mindful that, in addition to being able to communicate with the HCPC at any time, the Registrant would have been offered opportunities to provide comments on a number of occasions throughout the regulatory process, including:

a. upon being notified of the investigation in May 2024;

b. when provided with the information to be submitted to an Investigating Committee Panel on 12 February 2025 to determine what, if any, Particulars should be progressed to a hearing;

c. when issued with standard directions on 20 February 2025;

d. following receipt of the notice of hearing on 30 September 2025.

35. The only information before the Panel in respect of the Registrant’s position appeared to be contained in an article published on 17 May 2024. The article focused on a scheme to help offenders use their skills to earn "legitimate income" and the Registrant credited it with helping him “turn his life round”. It suggested that the Registrant was now pursuing an alternative career in IT.

36. Given the Registrant’s failure to provide any information to the Panel as to whether he reported the charge to the HCPC, and if not, why not, the Panel considered that the HCPC had discharged its evidential burden in respect of this particular and it was more likely than not that the Registrant had not complied with the requirement to notify his regulator of his criminal charge as quickly as possible or at all. The Panel inferred that the Registrant failed to notify the regulator to avoid any restriction being placed on his practice, given that the article indicated that the Registrant had “lost” his NHS career. Restrictions on his practice would be likely to inhibit the Registrant’s ability to maintain or secure employment as a Physiotherapist. This particular was therefore proved on the balance of probability.

37. The Panel noted that it had not received notice of the charge from the Registrant’s employer, though there was no information before it as to whether the Registrant was employed as a Physiotherapist at that time, or if so, whether he informed the employer of the criminal proceedings.

Particular 3: PROVED

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH114002): On or after 17 July 2023 you failed to inform the HCPC that you had been convicted of the criminal offence referred to in Particular 1.

38. The information available to the Panel in relation to Particular 3 was almost identical to that for Particular 2, in that Witness RM confirmed that there was no record that the HCPC had been advised of the conviction by the Registrant. There was also no comment from the Registrant as to what, if any notification he had given to his regulator.

39. Again, the HCPC also was not informed of the conviction by the Registrant’s employer, the Police or the Court.

40. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had discharged its evidential burden in respect of this particular and it was more likely than not that the Registrant had not complied with the requirement to notify his regulator of his criminal conviction as soon as possible or at all. This particular was therefore proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 4: PROVED

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH114002): You marked ‘no’ in response to the question ‘change relating to good character?’ on your HCPC registration renewal form which you signed and submitted on 20 February 2024, when you knew answering ‘no’ was incorrect, as you had not informed the HCPC of your criminal charge and subsequent conviction referred to above.

41. The primary evidence in relation to this particular came from Witness AM, a Registrations Manager for the HCPC. AM explained the registration and renewal process to the Panel, confirming that the information provided by the Registrant via their online portal fed directly through to the case management system operated by the registration team. As such, it directly reflected the information provided by the Registrant and they considered it highly unlikely that the information could have been entered by anyone other than the Registrant, given the protection offered by Multi Factor Authentication of the portal based user account.

42. Unlike Particulars 2 and 3, which reflected a failure to positively notify the HCPC of the charge and conviction, the Panel considered that this Particular relates to the Registrant effectively choosing not to declare the conviction when making a declaration to the regulator for the purpose of securing the renewal of his registration.

43. Had the Registrant attended the hearing and provided an explanation as to whether he had attempted to notify the HCPC about the charge or conviction, or explained why he ticked “no” instead of “yes” to this question, the Panel would have more information and context when making a decision on this particular. In the absence of any such explanation from the Registrant however, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant did not declare to the HCPC, during the registration renewal process, that there had been a change to his character status, or provide any details of the change. It again inferred that the Registrant made this choice consciously with a view to protecting his registered status at that time. Accordingly, the Panel found this particular proved on the balance of probability.

Particular 5: PROVED

As a registered Physiotherapist (PH114002): Your conduct set out at Particulars 2, 3, and / or 4 above was dishonest.

44. The Panel had regard to the advice provided by the Legal Assessor in relation to the test for dishonesty (per the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67). It also had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note in respect of ‘Making decisions on a registrants state of mind’. It was mindful that, in respect of dishonesty, it had to consider firstly what the Registrant knew, or believed, as to the facts and circumstances in which the alleged dishonesty arose, and then determine whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of an ‘ordinary decent person’.

45. The Panel considered the particulars in respect of which dishonesty is alleged in turn. The Registrant declared his previous convictions when he applied for registration with the HCPC and therefore was aware that such matters were of interest to the regulator. He would also have covered the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics during his training and be expected to observe them. The Panel recognised that there could be considered a distinction between the dishonesty in respect of Particulars 2 and 3 when compared to Particular 4, given that Particulars 2 and 3 involved dishonest omissions (by failing to report his charge and conviction), whereas Particular 4 involved a conscious decision to incorrectly deny that there had been a change in the status of his character. However, each dishonest act was, in the Panel’s view, perpetrated for the benefit of the Registrant – retaining his registration.

46. Particulars 2 and 3 covered a substantial period of time (March 2023 to at least 20 February 2024) during which the Registrant could have made a declaration to the HCPC. If, which seems unlikely, the Registrant was unaware of the need to report his conviction prior to renewing his registration, the renewal process which is the focus of Particular 4 should have reminded him of the importance of good character for registered professionals and their regulator. The dishonest conduct in responding “no” may not have taken much time, but was a continuation of the failures addressed by Particulars 2 and 3 and, in the Panel’s view, confirmed the Registrant’s dishonest intent. Further regard would be given to the extent and impact of the dishonest acts when the Panel considers the subsequent stages of the hearing.

47. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in respect of Particulars 2, 3 and 4 was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. It therefore found Particular 5 proved on the balance of probability.

Submissions and decision on grounds:

48. The Presenting Officer submitted that conviction is a statutory ground of impairment, which is made out in this case in respect of Particular 1 by virtue of the Certificate of Conviction. He also submitted that the statutory ground of impairment by misconduct was relevant in respect of Particulars 2 to 5. He reminded the Panel that the HCPC only became aware of the Registrant’s conduct as a result of the news article being brought to its attention. The Registrant had an ongoing opportunity to inform the HCPC of the charge and conviction at a time of his choosing, which he did not do. This failure was dishonest and, although not relevant to his clinical skills, was highly relevant to his regulated status and was serious. This failure fell short of what was proper and expected of the Registrant in the circumstances and therefore amounted to misconduct.

49. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor in relation to the statutory grounds of impairment, which it accepted and applied. It had regard to the Practice Note entitled “Convictions and caution allegations” and took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer. It was mindful that if it found that a statutory ground of impairment applied to any particular, further action would only be taken against the Registrant if his fitness to practise is found to be currently impaired.

50. Having found all of the particulars proved, the Panel was required to judge whether a statutory ground of impairment, as set out within the Order at article 22(1) and advanced by the HCPC, was engaged. It was conscious that deciding the issue of statutory ground was a matter for its own judgement and that it needed to consider the issue of statutory ground of impairment in respect of each particular found proved.

51. In respect of Particular 1, the Panel was satisfied that the statutory ground of impairment by way of conviction, as set out in Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Order, was made out in respect of the Registrant.

52. The Panel had been invited to find that the statutory ground of impairment by misconduct – as set out at Article 22(1)(a)(i) of the Order - applied in respect of Particulars 2 to 5. It was conscious that misconduct is a word of general effect, and that the misconduct must be serious and relate to the regulated profession. It therefore considered each particular in turn.

53. Particular 2 related to the failure to notify the HCPC that the Registrant had been charged with a drug related offence. The Panel considered the possibility that, had the Registrant denied the offence and pleaded not guilty, he may have considered that he need not make the report as he was innocent until proven guilty. However, the Panel did not consider this explanation plausible in the circumstances. The Police informed the HCPC that the Registrant initially accepted growing the cannabis but maintained it was for personal use despite the quantity. This explanation was disregarded by the Judge passing sentence on the Registrant.

54. Had the Registrant indeed been using cannabis to the extent that he was consuming the volume of product he was producing, the Panel would expect him to declare his dependence upon the cannabis in accordance with his obligation to manage his own health as sustained drug use could pose a risk to the Registrant’s patients. The Panel noted that the news article suggested that the Registrant turned to cannabis use to cope with a traumatic event, and that in turn led to his conviction and the loss of his career, however the Registrant had not informed the HCPC of these issues, when he was required to do so.

55. The Panel was satisfied that, in the absence of any explanation being provided by the Registrant, the failure to report his charge to the HCPC as soon as possible amounted to misconduct. The requirement to notify the regulator of such matters exists to enable the regulator to objectively assess the extent to which they could impact upon the safety of patients as well as impact upon the profession and public trust and confidence in the profession. By failing to notify the HCPC, the Registrant denied the regulator the information it was entitled to in order to carry out its statutory function of protecting the public. The Panel concluded that this amounted to misconduct which was serious and related to the profession – the Registrant prioritised his own interest over that of the public, the profession and the regulator.

56. The Panel applied the same rationale to Particular 3 but with less hesitation as to the seriousness of the Registrant’s conduct. Any regulated professional should be aware that their regulator would expect to be informed of an offence which resulted in a custodial sentence in excess of a year (albeit suspended) being imposed. The failure to notify the HCPC of this offence was serious, and the Panel inferred this was done for the personal benefit of the Registrant so he could maintain his professional registration. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in respect of Particular 3 amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct.

57. Particular 4 was, in the Panel’s view, an even more clear cut example of serious professional misconduct as it involved the Registrant knowingly misleading his regulator and denying it the opportunity to fulfil its statutory obligation to protect the public by failing to inform it of his conviction and sentence. The Panel had no hesitation in concluding that this conscious decision to mislead the HCPC amounted to serious professional misconduct.

58. Particular 5 relates to the issue of honesty and directly conflicts with the requirements of Standard 9 that registered professionals be honest and trustworthy and thereby ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession. The Panel had no hesitation in finding that dishonesty by a regulated professional in respect of a matter which may impact their registration status is both serious and relevant to the profession and therefore amounts to the statutory ground of impairment by misconduct.

Submissions and decision on impairment:

59. The Presenting Officer submitted that the HCPC considered the Registrant to be impaired on both the personal and public aspect of impairment. Whilst this was a matter for the judgement of the Panel, he submitted that the Registrant was impaired personally by the criminal behaviour and failing to engage with the hearing at all, or in a meaningful way with his regulator in advance of the hearing. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that there was no evidence of remorse or apology, or any understanding of his behaviour in respect of the conviction or the dishonesty. There was also no evidence of any attempt to remediate the behaviour. The Presenting Officer submitted that honesty is a fundamental tenet of being a registrant and the Registrant’s dishonesty poses a risk to the profession. Further, the particulars in this case disclose a risk to the public – regulated health professionals are in a position of trust which is why the standards are clear as to what is expected of them – particularly given the sustained nature of the dishonesty in this case.

60. In respect of the public aspect of impairment, the Presenting Officer submitted that a member of the public, knowing of the nature of the offence and the sentence imposed, and the dishonest failure to inform the regulator of the same, would be concerned. He suggested that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment is not made given the seriousness of the offence and the sustained failure to inform the HCPC of it.

61. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and provided no evidence as to his current fitness to practise, save for the repeated expressions within his email correspondence that he is not in the UK and that he wished to be removed from the Register.

62. The Panel received, accepted and applied the legal advice provided, and had regard to the information provided to it. It reminded itself that the test of impairment is expressed in the present tense in relation to the need to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise, and that this cannot be achieved without taking account of the way a person has acted or failed to act in the past. It also recognised that the purpose of the regulatory proceedings is not to punish the Registrant. It also had regard to the practice notes published by the HCPTS entitled “Fitness to practise impairment” and “Conviction and caution allegations”.

63. The Panel was mindful that a finding of impairment does not automatically follow a finding that the facts proved amount to a statutory ground of impairment – it could properly conclude the offence and subsequent failings were an isolated incident and that the chance of repetition in the future is remote. It also noted the guidance in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that it must be highly relevant when determining impairment that the conduct leading to the allegation is easily remediable, has been remedied and is highly unlikely to be repeated, as well as the “critically important public policy issues” identified in that case.

64. In the Panel’s view, there was no information before it in respect of the Registrant’s current insight into his conduct. The only information it could assess in respect of current impairment was the sentencing remarks of HHJ Walsh in August 2023 and the published article of May 2024. It had not been provided with transcripts of interviews with the Police or the pre-sentence report commissioned by the Court, and had been unable to explore current impairment with the Registrant as a consequence of him voluntarily absenting himself from the regulatory proceedings.

65. The sentencing remarks of HHJ Walsh confirmed that the Registrant received credit for his guilty plea and was sentenced according to the guidelines for the offence. He particularly noted:

a. The cannabis was cultivated in “significant quantities for the onward supply to others”;

b. The operation involved “sophisticated cannabis cultivation” which was at an early stage;

c. A “significant amount of work had been done at your home address to enable considerable quantities of cannabis to be cultivated“;

d. Aggravating features were present as “attempts had been made to ensure that electricity could be cultivated”;

e. “this was certainly an operation that was set up with a considerable amount of forethought and preparation”

f. Notwithstanding the offence, aggravating features and previous convictions, the sentence of imprisonment could be suspended.

66. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Panel found that there was a risk of repetition of the offence and the dishonest conduct.

67. The Panel considered that the consumption and or cultivation of cannabis (whether for personal consumption or supply) was capable of remediation but that the Registrant had given it no indication that he had taken steps to remediate this conduct. With no information available as to the content of the offence, the Panel concluded that it was likely the offence would be repeated.

68. The dishonesty perpetrated by the Registrant over a period of almost a year was, in the Panel’s view, attitudinal in nature and therefore far harder to remediate. However, it could be possible if the Registrant could demonstrate remorse, develop complete and secure insight and remediate his conduct through training and reflection. Given that the Registrant had not engaged meaningfully in the regulatory investigation or at all in the hearing, the Panel concluded that he had neither the desire nor the intention to remediate his conduct and the likelihood of it being repeated was therefore extremely high.

69. It was immaterial, in the Panel’s view, that the offence did not arise from the Registrant’s clinical practice – there was no remorse expressed by him and no evidence that he appreciated the impact the offence or his conduct could have on the public, his patients and his colleagues. It was mindful that the previous offences did not involve any dishonesty but did show that the Registrant had a longstanding disregard for the rule of law, which was of grave concern. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrants fitness to practice is currently impaired on the personal component of impairment.

70. In considering the public component of impairment, the Panel had regard to the important public policy issues, particularly the need to maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Whilst the Registrant’s action had not caused harm to a patient, it could have undermined confidence in his honesty and integrity and consequently impacted his relationships with his employer and colleagues.

71. There was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the public needed to be protected from the professional clinical acts of the Registrant. However, the Panel considered that members of the public and members of the profession, knowing all of the facts, would be concerned to learn that cannabis had been cultivated in significant quantities in the home of a Physiotherapist, leading to him being sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of a year despite credit for his early guilty plea (albeit suspended). It considered that they would also be extremely concerned that the Registrant compounded this behaviour by not declaring it to the HCPC in contravention of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, either at charge, conviction or sentence and then misleading the regulator through his renewal of his registration. The Panel considered that members of the public may have less faith in registered professionals if the regulatory process could be frustrated, and may be hesitant in accessing healthcare as a result.

72. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct breached Standard 9 the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) set out by the HCPC for all registered professionals, which requires registered professionals to be honest and trustworthy, and also:

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

“ 9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if:–

- you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence;

- another organisation responsible for regulating a health or social care profession has taken action or made a finding against you; or

- you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about your conduct or competence.”

“9.6 You must co-operate with any investigation into your conduct or competence, the conduct or competence of others, or the care, treatment or other services provided to service users.”

73. The Panel determined that public and professional trust and confidence in the profession, professional standards, and the regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made in these circumstances. It concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component for the reasons set out above.

Decision on Sanction:

74. The Presenting Officer addressed the Panel in relation to sanction, referring the Panel to the Sanctions Policy adopted by the HCPC and submitting that the Panel should consider the least restrictive sanction first and work up from there to a proportionate sanction.

75. The Presenting Officer highlighted relevant parts of the Sanctions Policy to the Panel, including submitting that the lowest sanctions of taking no action or imposing a caution were insufficient to address the serious concerns in this case. He referred the Panel to the case of Bolton v Law Society, which confirmed that registration brings with it obligations that registrants had to comply with.

76. In respect of mitigating features of this case, the Presenting Officer confirmed that the Registrant had pleaded guilty to the criminal offence and the published 2024 article indicated that he may be doing some positive work following the conviction and loss of his career.

77. There were however substantial aggravating features to this case in the Presenting Officer’s submission, including:

a. No insight, remorse or apology;

b. No evidence of remediation;

c. Dishonesty is indicative of an attitudinal issue;

d. The Registrant is subject to two other regulatory investigations, and one of those has resulted in an Interim Order being imposed, and allegedly breached.

78. The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that criminal convictions and dishonesty are considered serious matters, and referenced as such in the Sanctions Policy.

79. The Panel accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was mindful that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public and promote the wider public interest. The public interest includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its regulator by upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity.

80. The sanctions available to the Panel are contained within the Order at paragraph 29(5):

a. make an order directing the Registrar to strike the person concerned off the register (a "striking-off order");

b. make an order directing the Registrar to suspend the registration of the person concerned for a specified period which shall not exceed one year (a "suspension order");

c. make an order imposing conditions with which the person concerned must comply for a specified period which shall not exceed three years (a "conditions of practice order"); or

d. caution the person concerned and make an order directing the Registrar to annotate the register accordingly for a specified period which shall be not less than one year and not more than five years (a "caution order").

81. The Panel was mindful that, when determining the appropriate level of sanction, it was expected to ensure that the sanction is proportionate to the circumstances, protects the public in the least restrictive manner and takes account of the wider public interest, striking a proper balance between the interests of the registrant and the public.

82. The Sanctions guidance produced by the HCPTS to assist panels suggests that the identification of aggravating and mitigating features can aid panels in making a decision on sanction. Aggravating factors are features which increase the seriousness of the concerns and are likely to lead to stronger sanctions in order to protect the public, while mitigating factors do not excuse or justify poor conduct or competence but can indicate a reduced ongoing risk posed to service user safety and therefore reduce the severity of the sanction required.

83. The Panel had regard to the Sanctions Policy adopted by the HCPC and took into account the submissions of the Presenting Officer. It identified the following aggravating factors in relation to the Registrant’s conduct:

a. the Registrant had a number of opportunities to declare the criminal matters from 3 March 2023 onwards;

b. the criminal offence concerned the cultivation of a classified drug to sell;

c. the Registrant deliberately misled the regulator as to his character status at renewal, preventing it from performing its statutory duty;

d. the Registrant did not engage in the regulatory process and provided no information of insight, remorse or remediation.

84. The Panel was unable to identify any mitigating features in this case but did note the previously unblemished regulatory record of the Registrant. It noted that there were outstanding regulatory issues to be addressed, but these were undetermined at this stage and the Panel therefore attached little weight to their existence in determining the appropriate sanction to impose in this matter.

85. Given the serious nature of the offence committed by the Registrant, his failure to inform the HCPC of it at the time or upon renewal of his registration, and his apparent lack of remorse and insight, the Panel did not consider it appropriate to take no action or impose a caution order. The Panel was mindful that the Sanctions Policy confirms that while a finding of impairment means that there are concerns about a registrant’s current ability to practise safely and effectively, there may be instances in which taking no action is the appropriate and proportionate outcome, such as when there is no risk to the public, or to public confidence in the profession, in taking no action. Taking no action or imposing a Caution Order in this instance would be inappropriate and insufficient in this case given the absence of any insight, remorse or remediation, which the Panel considered raised the risk of repetition of the conduct.

86. Given that the conviction did not arise through clinical conduct or in the workplace, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate or afforded an appropriate level of protection to the public. It observed that the Registrant displayed no insight or remorse for the impact of his conduct upon his colleagues or the profession. It could not formulate any conditions which would address the dishonest conduct or make the Registrant comply with the law, and was mindful that the offence in 2023 was not the first or only conviction for this Registrant. The Panel also could not formulate any conditions in the circumstances of this case which would restore public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Further, the dishonest conduct perpetrated by the Registrant raised concerns as to whether any conditions, if it was possible to formulate any, would be complied with by the Registrant. The Panel was also mindful that the Registrant has indicated to it that he does not wish to live or work in the UK, and requested to be removed from the Register.

87. The Panel then gave careful consideration to the imposition of a Suspension Order, which it considered would send a signal to the Registrant, the profession and the public re-affirming the standards expected of a registered Physiotherapist. However, the Panel was cognisant that the Registrant was apparently no longer resident in the UK and expressed a desire to be removed from the Register, both of which would appear to support the contention within the 2024 article that the Registrant had turned to an alternative career.

88. If the Panel had been able to hear from the Registrant as to his current situation and intentions in respect of his career, it would have more information to be able to judge whether a Suspension Order could be appropriate. However, the Registrant had not engaged in the regulatory proceedings in any meaningful way and was voluntarily absent from the hearing. The Panel considered this displayed a lack of respect for his regulator and evidenced that the Registrant did not value either his registration as a Physiotherapist or the profession as a whole. Registration is a privilege which registrants work hard to attain. Upon attaining registration, they undertake to comply with their professional obligations, which in addition to their clinical practise, includes complying with the requirements of their regulator.

89. The Registrant had not provided any indication that he wished to remain in the profession – indeed he had requested to be removed from the Register. There was no information before the Panel as to whether the Registrant was maintaining his professional skills or remediating the concerns identified, and no indication that, were he to serve a period of suspension, he would either wish, or be competent, to return to the profession. Given all of the above, the Panel considered that imposing a Suspension Order would not be appropriate - it would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, or the extent of the dishonesty. Accordingly, it did not consider that a Suspension Order should be imposed.

90. The Panel concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose in this case is that of a Striking Off Order. The conduct of the Registrant in cultivating cannabis for supply, failing to declare the charge or conviction and then misleading his regulator was, in the Panel’s view, fundamentally incompatible with that expected of a registered professional. In the absence of any insight, remediation, remorse or apology from the Registrant, removal from the register was the only sanction that would adequately protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession and the regulator.

91. The Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory hearing and the Panel had no information from the Registrant as to the impact this sanction may have on him, but it was satisfied that the removal was necessary in the circumstances, and the need to protect the public outweighed the impact upon the Registrant.

Order

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Imran Khan from the Register on the day this Order comes into effect.

Notes

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

92. Upon the Panel determining the appropriate sanction to be a Striking Off Order, the Presenting Officer confirmed he intended to apply for an Interim Order but before he could do this, as the Registrant was not in attendance, he was required to make a further application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

93. The Presenting Officer sought an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months to cover the period before the Striking Off Order takes effect, and the appeal period.

Decision

94. The Panel received advice from the Legal Assessor and was invited to consider the guidance on interim orders following a substantive order as contained within the Sanctions Policy. The Panel also took account of the Practice Note in relation to Interim Orders.

95. The Panel was satisfied the Registrant was aware of the hearing and on notice that an Interim Order could be applied for as this was contained within the notice of hearing dated 30 September 2025. It was satisfied that the reasons provided for proceeding in absence at the start of the hearing remained applicable and was content to consider the application for an interim order in the absence of the Registrant.

96. Given that the findings of the Panel in relation to the serious offence committed by the Registrant, the persistent dishonesty and the risk posed to the public which led it to conclude that a Striking Off Order was the only appropriate way of adequately safeguarding the public, the Panel was content that an Interim Order pursuant to Article 31 of the Order is necessary and proportionate given the serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the Registrant’s conduct. Further, public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process would be seriously undermined if the Registrant was allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis pending expiry of the appeal period. The Panel had no information as to the extent of the impact this may have upon the registrant because of his total lack of engagement in the hearing. However, the need to protect the public from a clear risk outweighs any unidentified need of the Registrant. An interim suspension order was therefore appropriate in the circumstances.

97. The Panel considered that this order should be imposed for a period of 18 months, particularly given that, if an appeal is lodged, the fact that the Registrant is overseas will mean that additional procedural safeguards will need to be complied with. The Panel noted that the Interim Suspension Order will fall away in the event that no appeal is lodged to the substantive Striking Off Order.

Interim Suspension Order:

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.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Mr Imran Khan

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
31/10/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off