Thomas Ashworth

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied on the basis of the documents before it that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of this hearing. It had sight of the email sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 30 June 2025 informing him of the date and time of the remote hearing. The Panel was aware that 28 days’ notice is required and that all that is required of the Regulator is to evidence that notice has been sent to the Registrant’s address as held on the register. The Panel had sight of the email delivery receipt and the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, which confirmed his email address. As such, the Panel determined that good service had been effected.

Proceeding in Absence

2. Ms Bass made an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She took the Panel through the history of contact with the Registrant and noted that the hearing had originally been scheduled to take place in April 2025 but had been adjourned at the request of the legal representative the Registrant had at the time. Ms Bass referred to the recent correspondence to the Registrant, which was sent by recorded delivery and signed for, as well as the email correspondence sent to the Registrant’s updated email address. She submitted that the Panel could be satisfied that the Registrant was aware of this hearing, particularly in view of the statement and documentation he had sent for the Panel’s attention on the morning of the hearing. She invited the Panel to conclude that he had voluntarily absented himself and it was fair to proceed in his absence.

3. The Panel was aware that in accordance with rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules it had a discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In determining whether in all the circumstances it was fair to do so, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in Absence. It was aware, in view of the legal advice it received, of the factors which should inform its decision, as set out in R v Jones [2003] UKPC 34 as adapted for FTP proceedings. It had regard to the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 where the judge summarised the position as follows: “Where there is good reason not to proceed the case should be adjourned; where there is not however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

4. The Panel had reviewed the emails sent by the Registrant on the morning of the hearing and noted that he indicated he would not be attending. He had not requested an adjournment. He had provided the Panel with a witness statement running to over 100 pages, along with some certificates, a testimonial and a reflection on diversity. He had not responded to attempted telephone contact from Capsticks on behalf of the HCPC on the morning of the hearing.

5. The Panel noted that in an earlier written submission, the Registrant had referred to a lack of legal support from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. However, that situation remained unresolved and the Registrant had said he could not afford legal representation. The situation was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The Panel considered that the Registrant was fully aware of today’s hearing, in view of the documentation sent in. The matter had already been adjourned once and the events giving rise to the allegations took place over four and a half years ago. It followed that there was a strong public interest in bringing the matter to a conclusion. This, in the Panel’s view, outweighed the disadvantage to the Registrant in not attending to give evidence. That disadvantage was in part mitigated by the detailed statement he had provided. Further, the Panel could adopt an inquisitorial approach, asking questions of the HCPC’s witnesses, taking into account the content of the Registrant’s statement, to reduce the disadvantage as far as possible. The Panel determined that it was fair to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Amendment

6. Ms Bass via her case summary, applied to make an administrative amendment to the Allegation, such that it commenced with the words:

“As a registered physiotherapist (PH982440) you:”

7. The Panel determined that this did not in any way change the nature or seriousness of the Allegation and was purely administrative. The Panel granted the application, save that the Registrant’s registration number would also be corrected, removing the final ‘0’.

Background

8. The Registrant was employed as a Band 6 Physiotherapist to work three days per week on a temporary 12-month contract at Priory Grafton Manor (‘Grafton Manor’) to cover maternity leave. Grafton Manor is a rehabilitation unit for patients with acquired or traumatic brain injury. The Registrant’s first day of employment was 18 January 2021. His probation period was terminated early on 1 February 2021, an early review having been held due to concerns raised by colleagues.

9. The concerns raised were discussed with the Registrant at the probation review meeting. This was chaired by the Registrant’s line manager, SB, and attended by IHH, who is a registered nurse and was at the time the Director of Clinical Services at Grafton Manor.

10. The concerns raised with the Registrant were that he had stated that Indian physiotherapists are lazy; that he had laughed and encouraged inappropriate sexual comments made by a resident; that he had sent inappropriate WhatsApp messages to a female colleague and that he had described residents as ‘not normal’ and one as being ‘like a puppy with a treat’.

11. In view of the nature and number of concerns raised in a short period, the Registrant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect. A safeguarding referral was made and matters were reported to the HCPC.

12. The Panel heard evidence from:

• RH (Colleague D) a Therapy Assistant who worked with the Registrant at Grafton Manor. He gave evidence relating to Particulars 1a and 2a of the Allegation;
• HA, Therapy Assistant at Grafton Manor. She gave evidence relating to Particular 1b;
• IHH, who at the time of events was Director of Clinical Services at Grafton Manor. He is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

13. In addition, the Panel had a witness statement from AF (Colleague A), which had been admitted as hearsay via a decision made at a preliminary hearing on 25 October 2024. This statement went to Particular 2b.

14. The Panel had regard to the statement provided by the Registrant which ran to 105 pages.

Submissions

15. Ms Bass submitted that the HCPC, through the witness and documentary evidence before the Panel, had proved all of the Particulars of the Allegation on the balance of probabilities. She summarised the evidence pertaining to each Particular and submitted that the witnesses called had been credible and reliable.

Legal Advice

16. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It was aware that:

• The burden of proving the Allegation was on the HCPC and that the standard of proof was the civil standard;
• Contemporaneous documentary evidence is generally more reliable than witness memory – Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin);
• Witness credibility and reliability should be assessed with reference to the content of their evidence, internal consistency and how their evidence sits with the evidence as a whole;
• The weight to be given to hearsay evidence is a matter for the Panel, having regard to the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained and the extent to which it is consistent with other evidence;
• Evidence as to the Registrant’s good character is relevant at the facts stage – Wisson v HPC [2013] EWHC 1036 (Admin);
• When determining whether words were racist, an objective test is to be applied – PSA v GPhC & Nazim Ali [2021] EWHC 1692;
• Sexual motivation requires an assessment of the Registrant’s state of mind. It was defined in Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) as conduct done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. If conduct is sexual and there is no other explanation, sexual motivation should be inferred – GMC v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518 (Admin) and Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763.

Decision on Facts

Particular 1

Between 18 January 2021 and 1 February 2021, you did not communicate professionally towards service users. In that:

a) On 26 January 2021 you encouraged a service user to make inappropriate comments which were sexual in nature, in contravention to their treatment plan – PROVED.

17. RH in his statement said that he assisted the Registrant in a therapy session with Service User A on 26 January 2021. He said Service User A was outspoken and frequently swore and made comments of a sexual nature. He needed to be accompanied when in public because he would make inappropriate comments to members of the public and this put him in a vulnerable situation and would be seen as posing a threat to others.

18. RH said that Service user A had a care plan in place aimed at reducing his swearing and sexualised behaviour. RH’s evidence was that during the assessment, which took place in a lounge, a female member of staff walked past. Service User A said “Would I” or words to that effect, implying that he would like to have sex with the staff member. According to RH, the Registrant looked the staff member up and down and was grinning and smiling when he looked back at Service User A. Service User A started to laugh.

19. RH’s view was that the Registrant was exacerbating Service User A’s behaviour, contrary to the treatment plan. In his oral evidence RH was asked how the Registrant would have known that staff had to discourage Service User A’s sexualised comments. RH stated that this was not something the Registrant should have needed to be told, it was something that just should have been known. In response to questions from the Panel, RH said that the treatment plan would have been at the back of Service User A’s folder, however as the Registrant was new, RH was unsure if he would have known this. He said that when the comment was made the three of them were sitting close together in the lounge, close enough to touch each other. He had no doubt that the Registrant heard the comment.

20. This concern was put to the Registrant at his probation review meeting on 1 February 2021. The meeting notes record that it was put to the Registrant that a concern had been raised that Service User A had made an inappropriate sexual comment, and the Registrant had laughed and encouraged Service User A, which went against what his care plan said. The Registrant said that he recalled Service User A making a comment but denied that he encouraged such behaviour.

21. IHH gave evidence that the probation meeting notes were a full reflection of the meeting, which was short and probably lasted around 15 – 20 minutes. He said the only way of having a more detailed note would have been a verbatim record.

22. In his statement, the Registrant described the interaction with Service User A as being ‘in passing’ when he was on his way to see another resident. He said Service User A and the female member of staff were in the double doorway leading to the main lounge. The Registrant said that he heard Service User A say something to the female staff member, but as he was six meters behind, he did not hear it. Service User A then smiled at the Registrant and he smiled back.

23. The Panel found that the Registrant’s version of events as set out in his statement to be inconsistent with the probation meeting, in which he recalled Service User A’s comment. The Panel therefore did not accept the account given by the Registrant in his statement.

24. As to the reliability of RH’s account, the Panel noted that his statement had been given in November 2022, however there was no evidence before the Panel of the account RH gave to management in the aftermath of the incident. The Panel had some concerns regarding RH’s credibility. This was because, not having been taken to the part of his statement where he set out the comment made by Service User A in his evidence in chief, when the Panel asked what Service User A said, RH replied that it was along the lines of “look at that” or “check out that bum” or something more rude than that. He described the Registrant’s reaction as having been very laddish, as you’d expect blokes at the pub to be after too many drinks.

25. RH, when taken to his statement, said that his statement was the accurate version. However, the Panel’s concern was that when under affirmation, RH had given an account which he could not have remembered because by his own subsequent admission it did not take place. This was distinct from having been unable to recall an event initially and then being reminded when taken to the witness statement.

26. However, the Panel on balance was satisfied that the account given by RH in his witness statement was fairly accurate, because a version of events along those lines was put to the Registrant in the probation review meeting (hence must have been reported at the time), and the Registrant did not suggest that the incident did not happen, or that he did not hear the comment. He simply denied encouraging the behaviour of Service User A. The Panel therefore found, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant responded along the lines outlined by RH. Indeed, even on the Registrant’s account, he did not challenge Service User A or say that the comment was inappropriate. The Panel also accepted, based on the oral evidence of RH and his witness statement, that the treatment plan did exist.

27. The Panel found that the Registrant, given his experience of working with patients with brain injuries (he had worked at Grafton Manor in 2011/2012) was or should have been aware that Service User A’s comment was inappropriate and potentially linked to his brain injury. The Panel found that through his reaction to the comment (looking the female staff member up and down and smiling back at Service User A), the Registrant’s communication was inappropriate and encouraged such comments. Irrespective of whether the Registrant was aware of the treatment plan, he was or should have been aware that such behaviour was to be challenged rather than encouraged, and his failure to do so was in contravention of the treatment plan.

b) On or around 26 January 2021 you said that service users are “not normal” and described one particular service user as “like a puppy with a treat” or words to that effect – PROVED IN PART (“like a puppy with a treat”)

28. The Panel noted that this Particular contained two factual allegations. The Panel began by determining whether the Registrant said that service users were “not normal”.

29. None of the witness statements before the Panel made reference to this comment. Indeed, the only reference was in the document exhibited to the statement of RH, a note of his conversation with SB, when she discussed some of the concerns raised. In that note, which was unsigned and undated, and in respect of which the author was unknown, it was recorded, in response to being asked whether he recalled a comment along the lines of “like a dog with a treat”, RH replied he did not, but had heard the Registrant refer to residents as “not normal people”. When asked in evidence whether he had said that to SB, RH’s response was that he did not remember having said that. He had no recollection of either hearing such a comment or reporting it.

30. Whilst the note of the meeting with SB was made around the time of events, in the absence of evidence from its author, or SB, the Panel had concerns over the accuracy and hence reliability of the document. The position would have been different if the Panel had seen an email or similar written by RH, making the report of the comment. However, in view of the oral evidence of RH, combined with the fact there was no indication that the meeting note was sent to him at the time to check for accuracy, the Panel concluded that the HCPC had not adduced sufficiently cogent evidence to this part of the Particular to be found proved on the balance of probabilities.

31. Moving to the alleged comment that a service user was “like a puppy with a treat”, the Panel had regard to the evidence of HA. In her witness statement, HA said she was in the therapy team office when she overheard the Registrant having a conversation with another colleague. She said that the Registrant was talking to the colleague about the therapy session that had taken place earlier that day and referred to a female resident stating that “she was like a puppy with a treat”. In her oral evidence HA stated that she had been present in that therapy session. Her evidence was that the resident in question was difficult to engage, and whilst she had been pleased with the session, did not display behaviour which would warrant such a comment. Further, her concern was that the comment was likening the resident to an animal. HA acknowledged that this was her interpretation and perspective. For this reason, and because the Panel had sight of an email HA had sent to SB reporting this comment at the time, the Panel found HA to be a credible and reliable witness.

32. The Panel noted that the phrase “puppy with a treat” was put to the Registrant during his probation meeting, and he did not deny using it, rather, he stated “that’s not how I meant it”.

33. The Registrant, in his statement, said he used this phrase in relation to a highly positive session with the service user. He said that the service user had disengaged from the majority of the team, and he had a great session with her. He said he used the phrase with a sense of joy. In that context he used the words “happy as a puppy” and said that he felt the session was a “treat” meaning positive. This account was put to HA when she was giving her evidence, and she was very clear that the words she had heard were “like a puppy with a treat”.

34. The Panel noted that to a large extent the Registrant accepted the words he was alleged to have used but put something of a different interpretation on them. The Panel did not find it plausible that he would have described the session with the service user as a “treat”. The Panel found, more likely than not, that the Registrant stated the phrase alleged with reference to the service user. It found this part of the Particular proved.

Particular 2

Between 18 January 2021 and 1 February 2021, you did not communicate professionally towards colleagues. In that:

A) On or around 18 January 2021 you made a comment that was racist in nature, in that you described Indian physiotherapists as lazy and said that “they don’t do anything” or words to that effect – PROVED

35. RH, in his statement, said that on the Registrant’s first day, he joined RH for lunch. During the lunchtime conversation, RH stated that the Registrant said that Indian Physiotherapists “don’t do much at all and that was clear from the handover he got”. RH said that the Registrant was referring to ‘V’, an Indian colleague on maternity leave. In oral evidence RH said he recalled the conversation. The pair were walking, and RH said that for a long time he had not had a physiotherapist to work with. He had said that when he had worked with one, it was V, but she did not leave him much to work with. RH said that his role at the time as a Therapy Assistant was his first healthcare role, and he had needed to look things up online. RH said that he did not mention V’s ethnicity. He acknowledged that he was having a bit of a moan.

36. It was put to RH that the Registrant may have been sharing a story about someone he had worked with previously, and his comment was nothing to do with RH’s former colleague or Indian physiotherapists. He was asked whether it was possible that the Registrant was giving an example of a colleague who had suffered racism. RH replied “potentially”.

37. However, when the Panel asked questions of RH, recapping on what he had said in evidence in chief about not having much to work with, and asked it if he stood by what he had said in his statement (the Registrant said Indian physiotherapists don’t do much and that was clear from the handover he got), RH stated that the Registrant had asked where V was from. RH replied that she is Indian, and that was when the Registrant responded with a comment along the lines that “they [Indian physiotherapists] don’t do much”. RH acknowledged that he could not recall the word “lazy” being used. In re-examination he stated that he viewed the comment as racist because it was a generalised comment about Indian physiotherapists, and he understood the Registrant meant that Indian physiotherapists are lazy or try to do the bare minimum.

38. The Registrant in his statement said he’d had a former Indian boss who treated a former Indian female colleague badly, branded her as lazy and unfairly dismissed her because she was pregnant. He said he shared this story with RH. He said he went on to say that the fact the former physiotherapist was on light duties as she was pregnant could explain why RH did not receive training.

39. The Panel understood this to be an incident where an Indian manager had treated someone of the same race badly, in the parallel situation of the female being pregnant. This would suggest an Indian manager treated an Indian junior colleague unfairly due to pregnancy rather than race. However, this is not what the Registrant has previously asserted. Further, it suggests that the Registrant used the word lazy, albeit saying he disagreed the former colleague was lazy; that was the view of the former manager.

40. The Panel contrasted this account with that given by the Registrant in his probation review meeting, where he said he was talking about a former Indian male colleague. There was no mention of pregnancy or an Indian manager. Given these inconsistencies over time, the Panel did not find the Registrant’s account reliable.

41. The Panel found RH’s evidence on this Particular to be credible. He was open to the suggestion that the Registrant could have been referring to a former colleague, but the general sense and understanding RH got was that the Registrant was referring to Indian physiotherapists generally.

42. On balance, the Panel preferred the evidence of RH, given his report of his concern at the time, and the understanding expressed at the time that the comment referred to Indian physiotherapists generally. The Panel found that a comment along the lines alleged was made, and that it was racist in nature because it was a derogatory reference to Indian people generally.

b) You sent inappropriate WhatsApp messages to Colleague A which were flirtatious and/or sexual in nature – PROVED

43. The Panel had sight of the messages which corroborated Colleague A’s statement. The Panel relied primarily on the messages as they were the basis for this Particular. The Panel gave moderate weight to the hearsay statement of Colleague A, because it was largely consistent with the contemporaneous messages. The Panel was aware that it was required to make an objective assessment of the messages in order to determine whether they were flirtatious/sexual and inappropriate.

44. The Panel noted that it was not in dispute that Colleague A gave the Registrant her mobile number because he said that he could assist her in meeting her career goals. Colleague A was looking for an assistant psychology post and the Registrant had said that he knew people who could get her relevant experience. After giving the Registrant her number, messages were exchanged frequently. The majority were, to use Colleague A’s words “general chit chat”. However, the messages contained questions such as “are you a PJ wearer to bed?”, asked Colleague A’s age and described it as “sexy”, sent a link to a relaxation mat which he described as “equal to post-orgasmic relaxation” and said, “imagine if there was something as good as orgasmic”. When there was snow and travel was not easy, the Registrant sent a message saying, “They would need to have sexy boudoir staff bedrooms, its what I thought the place always needed”. The Registrant referred to Colleague A as “sweetheart”, “cute”, “cutie” and “huggable”.

45. The Registrant in his statement said he accepted that the messages when read out of context could be seen as flirtatious, however he said he was certain that they were in line with a sense of humour and specific jokes.

46. The Panel found that the messages which used the language quoted above were flirtatious and occasional messages (references to orgasmic) were sexual in nature, but at a low level.

47. As to whether the messages were inappropriate, the Panel noted that Colleague A did not at any time attempt to shut the Registrant down and at times appeared to encourage him, for example he asked whether she was tactile, and she turned the question around. She replied to the message asking if she was a PJ wearer in bed and responded positively to the Registrant’s suggestion that he give her a physio session for her hip/leg. When the Registrant mentioned a hug, Colleague A replied that would be nice. On occasion Colleague A was the first person to message at the start of the day, on one occasion as early as 6.15am. The Panel considered that Colleague A was potentially encouraging messages from the Registrant. Certainly, there was no indication from her that the messages were unwelcome.

48. Nevertheless, the Panel determined that the messages were inappropriate because the Registrant used a pretext of being able to help Colleague A progress in her career to get her number, and also due to the imbalance of power with the Registrant being more senior and in a position to influence Colleague A’s career prospects. The Panel found that the Registrant misled Colleague A in order to get her number and thereafter the communication was unprofessional, blurring the lines between personal and professional lives.

Particular 3

Your conduct at Particular 2b was sexually motivated – PROVED

49. The Panel was aware that sexual motivation is a state of mind which must be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. The Registrant’s explanation in his statement for the messages was that they were between friends and had been misinterpreted by management. He stated that Colleague A was comfortable with them. Whilst, as noted above, Colleague A did not give any indication that she was not comfortable with the messages, equally, it was the Registrant alone who used sexualised language, notwithstanding that Colleague A was open that she was in a relationship.

50. The Panel began by considering whether the messages were sent in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The Panel bore in mind that the Registrant was aware from an early stage that Colleague A was in a relationship, and there was not at any stage suggestion that the two of them meet up. There was no indication of taking matters further and as such the Panel did not find that the messages were sent with a view to a future relationship

51. The Panel then considered whether the sexual messages were sent for the purpose of sexual gratification. In the Panel’s view the messages very quickly became flirtatious given that the Registrant only worked at Grafton Manor for two weeks. Within that time a number of messages overstepped the boundary of what the Panel considered flirting and were sexual. Specifically, these were twice using the word “orgasmic”, asking Colleague A what she wore in bed, reference to “sexy boudoir staff bedrooms”, describing Colleague A’s age as “sexy” and thereafter the Registrant talking about the age of his ex-girlfriend and commenting “it was wild” and “I was just reminiscing”.

52. The Panel considered that there was no reason or justification for the use of this language, other than the Registrant using it for his own sexual gratification. The Panel concluded that these messages were sexually motivated, there being no other plausible explanation.

Decision on Grounds

53. Ms Bass invited the Panel to look at the HCPC’s 2016 Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics. She submitted that a number of the Standards had been breached. She submitted that the fact the allegations related to a short period of time heightened the risks. The Registrant had demonstrated a concerning attitude to race and gender and a lack of respect for colleagues and service users.

54. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It was aware that:

• Misconduct is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgment; there is no burden or standard of proof;
• There is no statutory definition, but guidance is given by the caselaw, including Roylance v GMC (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 31 where Lord Clyde said “Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed ... in the particular circumstances”;
• Doughty v General Dental Council [1988] AC 164 confirmed that such falling short as is established should be serious;
• Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC 2317 described it as “conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

55. The Panel went through the Particulars and identified the Standard that the Registrant’s conduct had breached.

56. Particular 1a, encouraging sexual comments from Service User A, engaged the following standards:

• 1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional;
• 2.5 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers;
• 6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible;
• 6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.

57. The Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct fell far short of all these Standards. He had acted extremely unprofessionally in encouraging the sexualised behaviour, which was not acceptable in any environment, but particularly a clinical one. This was because the Registrant’s actions blurred professional boundaries as he was acting contrary to the manner in which other professionals responded to Service User A in this type of situation. As such, his actions meant that he was not working in partnership with colleagues, but against them. This brought a risk of Service User A’s behaviour deteriorating, because it had been condoned.

58. Encouraging the behaviour when others were taking steps to reduce it meant that Service User A received mixed messages, which would have been confusing. The message from the Registrant was that this behaviour was acceptable and would encourage repetition by Service User A, thus increasing the risk of harm to him (potential response from recipients) and to females who were around him (hearing unwelcome sexualised comments). In the Panel’s view, consistency of messaging to service users in the position of Service User A is very important aspect of their care. Mixed messaging not only undermined the work done to reduce the behaviour, but significantly increased the risk of repetition of the behaviour and associated harm.

59. It followed that the Panel determined the Registrant’s actions were serious and amounted to misconduct.

60. Particular 1b, likening a service user to “a puppy with a treat”, in the Panel’s view breached Standard 1.1:

• You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity

61. The Panel found this language to be derogatory and demeaning to the service user. The Panel considered that the language indicated an attitude towards the service users he was working with (people with brain injuries) which was likely to influence how he treated them. As such, the conduct fell far short of the expected Standard and was misconduct.

62. Particular 2a, the comment that was racist in nature, branded an entire race as lazy. It was extremely derogatory and would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners. Standard 1.5 was engaged:

• You must not discriminate against service users, carers or colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships or the care, treatment or other services that you provide

63. The comment was made in the context about a colleague, albeit one that the Registrant had not met. The expression of such a view indicated an underlying attitude to Indian people, which was likely to influence the way the Registrant would treat them, either as colleagues or service users.

64. In the Panel’s view, the use of discriminatory language is always serious because of the potential for consequential differential treatment of people in the particular group, and because it is inconsistent with the core values of the profession. As such, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s comment was misconduct.

65. Particular 2b, inappropriate WhatsApp messages, engaged the following Standards:

• 2.7 You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites;
• 9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

66. As noted in the findings of fact, the Panel’s concern was that the Registrant obtained Colleague A’s phone number under a false pretence and proceeded to communicate with her in what was at times a sexual manner. This was not what Colleague A had agreed to or expected when she gave the Registrant her number. Indeed, there was no evidence in the messages that the Registrant had followed up on his stated aim of putting Colleague A in touch with someone who may be able to help with her career aspirations. Instead, flirtations and then sexual messaging started within a few days of the Registrant commencing his role, with a junior member of staff. There were no allegations that the Registrant communicated in a similar manner with more experienced staff. This suggested that he had targeted a young female, and consequently there was an imbalance of power. Such conduct is likely to damage the public’s trust in both the individual member of the profession and the profession more broadly, because it is or has the potential to be predatory. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s actions were serious breaches of the expected standards and were misconduct.

67. Particular 3, sexual motivation, arose from the sexual messages that form the basis of Particular 2b. The messages were inappropriate because of Colleague A did not give the Registrant her phone number with a view to receiving sexualised messages. Whilst she did not give any indication at the time that the messages made her uncomfortable, and she responded and answered the Registrant’s questions of a personal nature, the Panel was of the view that this was at least in part due to the imbalance of power in the work relationship. The Registrant had targeted and used Colleague A in part for his own sexual gratification. This conduct would, in the Panel’s view, be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners and, as such, was misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

68. Ms Bass invited the Panel to find current impairment. She submitted that his past conduct meant that the first three Grant questions were to be answered in the affirmative; the Registrant had put patients at risk of harm, had brought the profession into disrepute and breached fundamental tenets. As to future risk, Ms Bass submitted that the Registrant’s denial meant that he had not accepted responsibility for his actions or demonstrated a commitment to change. There was, in her submission, consequently a risk of repetition that required a finding of current impairment.

69. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It was aware that:

• Impairment is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgement;
• Misconduct and impairment are separate stages in the decision-making process, and it may be that misconduct having been found, a panel may decide that fitness to practise is not impaired; Cheatle v GMC [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin);
• The question for the panel was whether Mr Ashworth’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct. Accordingly, in assessing impairment, the panel was looking at the past to assess the present; Meadow v GMC [2007] 1 QB 462;
• The Panel should take into account the guidance provided in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), as formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the report into the Fifth Shipman Inquiry;
• The Panel may be assisted by the three-fold test set out in the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin): Is the conduct remediable? Has it been remedied? Is it highly unlikely to recur?;
• Finally, the Panel should consider the public interest, and whether the need to uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the circumstances of this case.

70. The Panel accepted the submission of Ms Bass with regard to the Grant questions. In its determination on misconduct the Panel had found that the Registrant’s conduct in his encouragement of Service User A, and his discriminatory attitude put patients at risk of harm. Such conduct, along with the sexual messaging and the derogatory comment likening a service user to a puppy all brought the profession into disrepute. Racist language and sexually motivated conduct breached fundamental tenets of the profession.

71. Moving to consider current impairment, the Panel needed to assess whether the conduct was remediable, had been remediated and hence the risk of repetition in line with Cohen. The Panel considered that the conduct was in principle remediable. Unprofessional communication, the essence of the misconduct arising from Particular 1 had the potential to be corrected through training and reflection. The misconduct found relating to Particulars 2 and 3 was inherently more difficult to remedy, being attitudinal in nature. Training and reflection had the potential to address a single racist comment, and the sexual messaging was at the less serious end of the spectrum of sexual misconduct.

72. The Panel then reviewed the material provided by the Registrant to form a view on remediation. He had apologised to Colleague A for the messages, although the apology came with a caveat and attempt to justify his actions. As to the remaining conduct, the Registrant had either justified it or put forward an alternative version of events that had not been accepted, at the facts stage, by the Panel. As to the Registrant’s reflection on diversity (a standalone document), the Panel considered that he had not demonstrated an understanding of the dangers associated with holding generalised views about a particular race. The Registrant had in essence said that he had worked, played sport and come into contact with people from a wide range of ethnicities and races in his life to date, and this was inconsistent with holding racist views. The Panel did not accept this logic.

73. The Registrant had submitted some CPD as follows:

• Developing high trust work relationships, 2 hours, 25 July 2025;
• Learning to teach: becoming a reflective practitioner, 5 hours, 30 July 2025;
• Hybrid working: change management, 1 August 2025;
• Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace, 24 hours, 6 August 2025.

74. However, there was no evidence before the Panel of the learning that the Registrant had taken from these courses. There was nothing in his statement to say how these would impact on his practice going forward, what he would change or do differently.

75. The Panel determined that the Registrant had not demonstrated genuine insight. He had justified or denied his actions, meaning he was not in a position to remediate, in the absence of acceptance of wrongdoing and demonstration of a will to put things right. There was no evidence that the Registrant had reflected and started to change his attitudes to Indian people or junior female colleagues.

76. The Panel had regard to the single testimonial from RB. It noted that she worked with the Registrant in 2011. Therefore, she was unable to give an up-to-date view on his character. The Panel was not assisted by the testimonial.

77. There being no evidence of insight and a lack of meaningful remediation, the Panel determined that the risk of repetition of the misconduct was high. The Panel found that the Registrant is currently impaired because he continues to pose risks to service users and colleagues, as identified at the misconduct stage.

78. The Panel further determined that a finding of impairment is required in the public interest to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

79. This was because racist language is indicative of underlying discriminatory views. This has the potential to harm service users of that race, because the Registrant may treat them less favourably than those of other races. Additionally, the Registrant has the potential, due to his racist attitude, to offend service users, carers and colleagues of Indian descent, by expressing his underlying views. Such views bring the profession into disrepute, and breach the fundamental tenet of not discriminating. As such a finding of impairment was made in the public interest to mark the unacceptability of racist language and views.

80. Finally, sexual misconduct, albeit at the low end of the scale, is conduct that cannot be tolerated and is never acceptable, again because it is indicative of an attitude, here towards junior colleagues, that should not have to be tolerated by others at work. Colleagues rightly expect regulatory action to be taken to uphold professional standards in the workplace, and members of the public would expect a finding of impairment to mark the unacceptability of the targeting of a junior colleague for sexual gratification. The Panel made a finding of current impairment accordingly.

81. In conclusion, the Registrant is currently impaired on both the personal and public components. These findings are required to protect the public, uphold standards and maintain public confidence in the profession.

Decision on Sanction

82. Ms Bass submitted that the Panel should refer to the guidance in the Sanctions Policy and noted some of the relevant considerations in relation to each sanction open to the Panel.

83. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It was aware that the purpose of sanction is not punitive. As such, the Panel should impose the minimum sanction that will mitigate the risks identified to the public and which at the same time will meet the public interest.

84. The Panel began by considering mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of mitigation, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s apology to Colleague A had been genuine; he had offered his apology during the probation review meeting and had emailed her to apologise. This indicated a level of remorse, in the context of conduct which Colleague A at no point indicated she wished him to stop. In addition the Registrant had done some relevant CPD, notably the diversity course lasting the equivalent of three working days.

85. As to aggravating features, the Registrant had denied and lacked insight in relation to his racist comment, and the impact of such comments on colleagues. Further, there had been a pattern of inappropriate communication, indicating an increased likelihood of repetition.

86. The Panel then worked through the available sanctions in ascending order. It considered that this was not a case in which taking no action was appropriate, i.e. where the finding of impairment was in itself sufficient due to the Registrant’s lack of insight and hence the risk of repetition.

87. The Panel considered that a caution order was also insufficient both due to the nature of the misconduct and the Registrant’s lack of insight and hence the risk of repetition.

88. The Panel went on to consider a conditions of practice order. Such an order could potentially be appropriate to manage the risks to patients and service users, since the conduct was capable of being remedied; the Registrant’s failures were not persistent or generalised. The Panel took some time to discuss whether conditions could be formulated that would be workable and mitigate against the risks identified. However, the Panel ultimately considered that given its findings of impairment arising from both discriminatory language and sexual misconduct, combined with the lack of demonstrated insight into the impact of such conduct on patients, colleagues and public confidence in the profession, this was not a case where conditions of practice would meet the public interest.

89. The Panel therefore moved to consider a suspension order. The Registrant’s misconduct represented serious breaches of the Standards. Whilst the Panel had little by way of evidence of insight, it took into account that the Registrant had been unrepresented, so had not benefited from professional advice as to how panels assess impairment. He had submitted a lengthy statement, but that was unfocussed and whilst the Registrant said he had reflected, this was not articulated in a meaningful way. This, combined with the Registrant’s decision not to attend the hearing and answer the Panel’s questions left the Panel with little to work with. Its conclusion that there was a high risk of repetition may have been different had the Registrant been present to answer direct questions aimed at assessing his understanding of the implications of his conduct for service users, colleagues and the public. The Registrant had engaged with the regulatory process through the provision of written material. This was, in the Panel’s view, evidence of a commitment on some level to put matters right.

90. Therefore, the Panel determined that with guidance, the Registrant may well be able to remedy his failings. On this basis the Panel determined that a suspension order was the appropriate and proportionate order. It will allow the Registrant time and the opportunity to demonstrate insight, should he follow the guidance set out below in relation to the things that are likely to assist a future reviewing panel. Further, a suspension order is a serious sanction, which prevents the Registrant from practising, meaning that the risks to service users and colleagues are mitigated. The nature of such an order additionally marks that the misconduct was serious, and sends out a clear message that it is incompatible with the values of the profession. As such, a suspension order meets the public interest; it maintains standards and upholds confidence in the regulator and the regulatory process.

91. As to the length of the suspension, the Panel determined that six months will allow time for the Registrant to reflect and demonstrate insight. This period will also be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the conduct, given the Panel’s determination that whilst discriminatory comments and sexual misconduct are inherently serious, the misconduct in question was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness for these types of behaviours. There had been a single racist comment and the sexual misconduct was in the form of messages, which were not rebuffed, rather than physical contact.

92. The Panel had regard to the sanctions policy as to when a striking off order may be appropriate. It considered that such an order would be disproportionate in the circumstances of this case, in view of its finding that the conduct is remediable and as such is not incompatible with continued registration. The decision to suspend the Registrant recognises that there is a public interest in an otherwise competent professional being retained on the Register, and in due course, being able to return to practice.

93. This Order will be reviewed prior to its expiry. The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by:

• The Registrant’s attendance at the review hearing;
• Testimonials from any current or recent employers, or from any voluntary work undertaken, testifying to the Registrant’s attitude and conduct towards colleagues and clients;
• A focussed reflection (using the Gibbs reflective practice cycle) on the impact of the use of racist language by professionals;
• A focussed reflection on the risks associated with practitioners not making themselves aware of and following care plans;
• A focussed reflection on professional boundaries with colleagues and the implications of an imbalance of power;
• Further CPD including modules on diversity and respect, along with a written demonstration of the learning taken from all the recent CPD undertaken, including how this learning will influence the Registrant’s practice in the future.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the Registrant for a period of six months.

Interim Order

Application

94. Ms Bass made an application for an Interim Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period in the event that the Panel imposed a restrictive sanction. She submitted that to do otherwise would be inconsistent with the Panel’s decision.

95. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it could make an interim order if doing so was necessary for protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should bear in mind its previous findings and consider whether it is necessary to place any restriction on the Registrant’s practice as of today. If so, it should determine the appropriate form and duration of any interim order.

96. The Panel was mindful of its earlier findings, specifically that there is a high risk of repetition of the misconduct which in turn poses risk to service users and colleagues. The Panel had further found that the public interest required a finding of impairment, and had imposed a suspension order as that was the minimum sanction that would satisfy the public interest. The Panel decided that it would be incompatible with those findings if there was no Interim Order in place.

97. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an interim suspension order is necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest.

98. The Panel made an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months. This would allow for any appeal. When the appeal period expires, this Interim Order will come to an end unless an appeal has been filed with the High Court. If there is no appeal, the substantive order will take effect when the appeal period expires.

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 Thomas Ashworth