Mr Juan C Martinez Zamorano

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Panel was satisfied on the papers that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of today’s hearing in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended.

Proceeding in Absence
2. Ms Khaile made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and waived his right to attend.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that by email to the HCPC dated 18 September 2025, the Registrant stated that he would be travelling today and would be unable to attend the hearing. He did not request an adjournment. The Panel was satisfied that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend. Today’s hearing is a mandatory review and must take place before the expiry of the Suspension Order on 8 October 2025. The Panel decided that it was in the public interest, and not unfair to the Registrant, to proceed in his absence.

Background

4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist. On 31 December 2023 he was stopped by the police in the early hours when driving his car into a road to which access was not permitted. He was breathalysed and found to be over the legal limit for driving.

5. The Registrant was charged with an offence accordingly. He informed his employer the same day as he could not attend work, having been in police custody overnight.

6. On 30 January 2024 the Registrant pleaded guilty at St Albans Magistrates Court to the offence of driving with a breath alcohol level of 48 micrograms in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeding the prescribed limit. He was disqualified from driving for 14 months, a period which would be reduced by 14 weeks with satisfactory completion of an approved course, and he was fined £1,000.

7. The Registrant informed the HCPC of his conviction in March 2024, when renewal of his registration was due.

8. The HCPC made enquiries with the Registrant’s employer, to which the Head of Physiotherapy responded with an email reference. That confirmed that the Registrant had been employed for two years at Tottenham Hotspur Football Club as a Physiotherapist and there were no concerns about his fitness to practise. However, the club was not in a position to renew his contract after its expiry on 30 June 2024. In a subsequent email from the Human Resources department, it was stated that the employer had carried out a risk assessment and the outcome was ‘low’ because the Registrant was not required to drive as part of his role.

9. At the substantive hearing on 10 June 2025, at which the Registrant was neither present nor represented, the panel found the Allegation proved on the basis of the certificate of conviction.

10. With regard to impairment, the panel took into account the employer’s risk assessment which concluded that the risk was ‘low’ and that the Registrant’s line manager, also a registered Physiotherapist, had no concerns about the Registrant’s fitness to practise. The Panel noted that there had been no concerns raised about the Registrant’s clinical practice and that driving was not a part of his role with his UK employer. The Panel concluded that the Registrant did not pose a risk of harm to patients or members and therefore was not impaired on the basis of public protection.

11. The Panel was concerned that the Registrant had not provided any evidence of insight, remorse or reflection. He had not demonstrated any recognition of the impact of the conviction on the public’s view of and trust in physiotherapists. The panel concluded that the Registrant did not recognise the seriousness of the matter and how a conviction arising from conduct outside the work environment nevertheless impacted on the reputation both of individual registrants and the profession more broadly. In view of the Registrant’s apparent attitude that the matter was concluded by the fact of the conviction and there was nothing more to say, he had brought the profession into disrepute. The panel had no assurance that the Registrant would not act in a similar manner in the future, given his lack of insight. It found that his fitness to practise was impaired on the personal component.

12. In addition, the Panel considered that members of the public would expect the Regulatory process to mark the seriousness of drink driving convictions. They are inherently serious due to the associated risks, and the Registrant’s lack of judgment in deciding to drive home after a night in a pub fell below the standard of conduct that the public expects from registered professionals. Informed members of the public would expect a finding of impairment to be made in a case where there was an absence of recognition of this on the part of the Registrant, and his behaviour more generally, in having delayed informing the Regulator (notwithstanding that he had been advised by his employer to report the matter at the time of the conviction). The Panel determined that the Registrant was impaired in respect of the public component because a failure to make such a finding would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

13. With regard to sanction, the panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 3 months. It was of the view that a short period of suspension would suffice to allow time for the Registrant to demonstrate insight and remediate.

14. The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel might be assisted by:

• evidence of any remediation, such as developing an understanding of the role and importance of professional regulation and upholding standards; and
• the Registrant’s attendance at the review hearing.

Today’s Hearing

15. On behalf of the HCPC, Ms Khaile took a neutral stance as to whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

16. The Registrant provided the HCPC with the following documentary evidence for the purpose of this review:

• a reflective statement, expressing remorse for his conviction and his understanding of the negative impact on his professional status and the reputation of the profession;
• a positive reference from his current employer; and
• a certificate evidencing that he had undertaken modules in professional ethics as part of the PHD course which he is undertaking at the International University of Catalonia.

The Panel’s Decision

17. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes “Review of Article 30 Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

18. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired by reason of the allegations found proved at the substantive hearing.

19. The Panel took into account the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 [Admin] where it was stated that in practical terms there is a “persuasive burden” on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.

20. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had shown appropriate remorse and insight by his reflective statement. The positive testimonial from his current employer provided evidence that there were no concerns about his clinical competence or professional conduct. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s drink-driving conviction was an isolated incident, which was unlikely to be repeated. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired in respect of the personal component.

21. With regard to the public component of impairment, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant could return to unrestricted practice without posing any risk to the public and without any loss of public confidence in the profession or the HCPC as its Regulator. The Panel considered that the public interest would be served by the Registrant being able to provide his services as a clinically competent physiotherapist to the public.

22. Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired, the Suspension Order will lapse on 8 October 2025 without the imposition of any further sanction.

Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired, the Suspension Order will lapse on 8 October 2025 without the imposition of any further sanction.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Juan C Martinez Zamorano