Allan James Mcroberts

Preliminary Matters

Service
1.    The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to his registered email address on 01 June 2026 informing him that there would be a final hearing commencing on 27 August 2026. An email delivery notification has been provided.

2.    The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep his contact details up to date with the HCPC.

3.       The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents.

Proceeding in absence 

4.       The Panel considered whether it was appropriate and fair to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the representations made by Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC. 

5.    The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the hearing was a final substantive hearing of the Allegation.

6.       Having found good service of today’s hearing, the Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit written representations or seek an adjournment. The Panel was aware that the Registrant had responded by email dated 27 July 2026 and 11 August 2026 confirming he would not be attending the hearing.

7.       The Registrant made no application for an adjournment. 

8.       The Panel was mindful of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so and was also aware that the matter was listed for a final hearing of the Allegation. The Panel was aware that the Registrant had provided written submissions for its consideration.

9.    In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant, as it concluded that the Registrant had deliberately and voluntarily absented himself, and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment as it would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance. 

10.       The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding which outweighs any prejudice caused to the Registrant by proceeding in his absence. The Panel concluded that the Registrant should not be permitted to frustrate the regulatory process through his lack of engagement.

Privacy Application 

11.    Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC applied for the hearing to be held partly in private to protect the health and / or private life of the Registrant where such matters were referred to. Mr Doyle indicated that references to the Registrant’s health may be made during the hearing.

12.    The Panel referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’, which states that as a general rule hearings are to be heard in public in accordance with the ‘open justice’ principle. However, in certain circumstances it may be in the interests of justice for the hearing to take place wholly or partially in private.

13.       The Panel considered the representations made and determined that it was appropriate for the hearing to be heard partly in private to protect the health and/or private life of the Registrant where such matters were referred to, as health issues should not be in the public domain. The Panel considered that the health matters were not inextricably linked to the concerns that it was possible to hold only part of the hearing in private.

Application to amend the Allegation

14.    Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC applied to amend the Allegation in relation to Particular 2 to reflect the fact that the Registrant had confirmed that the message was sent to Student A via social media rather than via text message.

15.    It was submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the Registrant as the amendment did not alter the scope, nature or seriousness of the Allegation, and was to correct a factual inaccuracy in the original Allegation to more accurately reflect the evidence.

16.    It was identified that the Registrant was put on notice of the application and did not oppose the proposed amendment.

17.    The Panel received and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Case Management, Directions and Preliminary Hearings’.

18.       The Panel was aware that the HCPC rules are silent on amendments, but it is within its jurisdiction to consider such applications. The Panel considered whether any unfairness or prejudice would arise should it permit the amendments. The Panel carefully considered the submissions in relation to the proposed amendments and the documents contained within the hearing bundle.

19.    The Panel noted that the Registrant was on notice of the proposed amendments, and no objection had been raised. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had had adequate time prior to the substantive hearing to prepare his case and respond. In addition, the amendments proposed do not increase the seriousness of the case against him and any potential for prejudice to the Registrant was outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that the Allegation reflects the evidence.

20.    The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC rationale was sound and that the proposed amendment could be made without any unfairness or injustice to the Registrant. The amendment better reflects the evidence, is sensible, easier to understand and makes matters clearer for the Registrant and the Panel to understand. The nature of the case against the Registrant has not materially changed.

21.      Accordingly, the application to amend would be granted in its entirety.

Admissions

22.       The Panel was made aware that the Registrant had provided a response to the Allegation by the ‘Notice to admit facts and documents’ dated 27 July 2026. The Registrant admitted all of the factual Particulars of the Allegation.

23.      The Particulars admitted will be referred to by the Panel in its decision.

Background

24.    The Registrant is a HCPC registered Physiotherapist who was previously employed by University A as a lecturer in Physiotherapy. 

25.    On 13 February 2025, a student at the University, Student A, disclosed to the safeguarding team that an alleged sexual assault had taken place the previous day by the Registrant on university premises. The Registrant was arrested later that day. 

26.    On 15 February 2025, the Dean of Allied Sciences at University A referred the matter to the HCPC.

27.    The Registrant was suspended by University A pending an internal investigation. He was subsequently dismissed with immediate effect on 25 March 2025.

28.    On 15 September 2025, the Registrant was convicted of sexual assault on a female following his guilty plea. He was sentenced to a Community Order on 23 October 2025 for two years with the following requirements:
a.    Rehabilitation activity;
b.    Unpaid work (240 hours within the next 12 months);
c.    Payment of compensation of £1,000;
d.    Notification of requirement to register with police in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 from 23 October 2025 for five years.
  
29.    On 30 March 2026, the Investigating Committee Panel (ICP) decided there was a ‘case to answer’ and referred the Allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

Evidence 

30.    The HCPC did not call any live evidence. The Panel reviewed the documentary evidence contained within the 112-page hearing bundle, and a case summary of 15 pages from the HCPC. 

31.    The Panel was referred by Mr Doyle to the Certificate of Conviction dated 10 November 2025 which showed that on 15 September 2025 the Registrant was convicted of an offence under Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which occurred on 12 February 2025.

32.    The Panel received written and oral submissions from Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC. In relation to Particular 3 Mr Doyle referred the Panel to the comments from the Registrant in which he accepted responsibility for his actions, expressed remorse and regretted the impact it had caused to Student A. 

33.    Mr Doyle submitted that what the Registrant had admitted was clear and unequivocal and he invited the Panel to conclude that the message sent to Student A on 09 February 2025 was sexually motivated and sexual in nature. 

34.    Mr Doyle invited the Panel to consider the sexualised tone of the message which referred to Student A showering, he indicated that the Registrant had acknowledged his wrongdoing in the message itself by referring to ‘inappropriate comments’ and the ‘innocence’ of Student A. Mr Doyle also highlighted that the Registrant had acknowledged that his use of social media to contact Student A was inappropriate. The Panel was invited to consider the message in the context of the sexual assault which occurred three days later. It was submitted that there was no plausible explanation for the message which was outside the boundaries of what is acceptable within a lecturer and student relationship.

35.    The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was aware that the Registrant had admitted Particulars 1 and 2.

Decision on Facts 

36.    The Panel heard submissions from Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC and considered the representations made by the Registrant in his ‘admissions’ and statement dated 27 July 2026.

37.    The Panel was aware that the standard of proof in deciding whether the facts are proved is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.  In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that the act or omission alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved.

38.    The Panel received and accepted legal advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Admissions’ which states ‘an admission of a fact is sufficient to prove that fact’. The Panel was advised that it can find a fact proved by virtue of that admission without receiving further evidence, however it should be satisfied that the admission is unequivocal, the Registrant fully understands what the Allegation is and the implications of admitting it. The Panel was aware of the importance of it being provided with all relevant information to enable it to understand the context and seriousness of the case, so that even when facts are admitted, it can make informed decisions regarding impairment and sanction, if appropriate.

39.    The Panel looked at each of the particulars of the Allegation independently and in reaching its decision considered whether the facts set out in the allegation are proved, assessing the admissions, and the written evidence, and attaching such weight as they see fit to each piece of evidence.

40.    The Panel was aware that in considering sexual motivation and or whether conduct was sexual in nature it should make findings of fact about what happened before determining the Registrant’s state of mind or motivation at the time of the behaviour in question. 

41.    The Panel was referred to the definition of sexual motivation set out in Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin), and the test set out by the Court of Appeal in Haris v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 763.

42.    The Panel was also referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind’.

43.    The Panel noted that the Registrant was not present, had not given evidence on affirmation and had not been open to questions from the HCPC and the Panel.

44.    The Panel considered sequentially:
•    whether the facts set out in the Allegation are proved;
•    whether those facts amount to the ‘statutory grounds’ alleged – conviction and misconduct.

Particular 1

45.    The Panel referred to the Certificate of Conviction from Ipswich Magistrates Court dated 10 November 2025 which showed that the Registrant was convicted of a sexual assault on 12 February 2025 contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 following a guilty plea. The Panel noted that the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Panel Rules 2003 10(d) provide:-

“where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based;”

46.    The Registrant admitted Particular 1.

47.    The Panel considered the Certificate of Conviction as proof of the fact of the conviction. The Panel was satisfied that the fact of the conviction was admitted unequivocally and accordingly was found proven.

Particular 2 

48.    The Panel considered the witness statements of Student A, together with the screenshots of the messages, the Police report and other evidence around the sending of the message. The Panel also referred itself to the Registrant’s admission and statement.

49.    The Registrant admitted Particular 2 and the Panel was satisfied that the admission was unequivocal and with full understanding and knowledge of the implications of admitting it.

50.    The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Registrant sent the message set out in Particular 2 to Student A on or around 09 February 2025.

Particular 3

51.    The Panel referred itself to the content of the message which the Registrant admitted sending to Student A via social media. The Panel was of the view that the content of the message was inappropriate in the context of a lecturer / student relationship. The Registrant was in a position of power over Student A and was breaching University policies in using social media to message a student.

52.    The Panel considered the fact that Student A was female and in a vulnerable position in comparison to the Registrant by virtue of that relationship. A student’s future success relies on the professional relationship developed with their lecturer. To blur that boundary can be highly inappropriate.

53.    The message referred to Student A having a shower, referenced ‘inappropriate comments’ and Student A being ‘innocent’, which is suggestive of the comments being made with a sexual motive. The Panel considered that the Registrant would have been aware of the power imbalance, and that there was no other plausible explanation for the message other than it being in pursuit of sexual gratification, and a future sexual relationship.

54.    The Panel was of the view that the Registrant was being flirtatious and was ‘testing the waters’ for what was to follow as a means of seeing whether Student A was interested in him.

55.    Whilst the Panel acknowledged that some messaging is said to have occurred prior to this, it did not have sight of those messages to add context. However, the Panel considered that this message in isolation was sufficient to satisfy it that the Registrant had breached professional boundaries, abused his position of power, and that it was sexually motivated. The Registrant would have been aware that he should not be directly messaging students.

56.    The Panel also considered whether the message was sexual in nature. It found that a lecturer messaging a student referencing her being in the shower, inappropriate comments and innocence could only be considered sexual in nature. There was no other plausible explanation for it. 

57.    The Panel considered the message to be overtly sexual, there were no issues around clinical appropriateness, and there was no consent to it. 

58.    The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the circumstances in which the message was sent, and the content of the message, support the assertion that the message was sexual in nature.

Decision on Grounds

59.    The Panel next went on to consider whether or not the facts found proved amounted to the statutory grounds alleged, conviction and misconduct, which is a matter of judgment for the Panel.

60.    The Panel heard submissions from Mr Doyle on grounds. The Panel noted that the Registrant accepted that his conduct had fallen far below what would be expected.

61.    Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Registrant had breached a number of Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) and Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapist 2023.

62.    The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was referred to Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 where the Privy Council defined “misconduct” as “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 by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances”.

63.    The Panel was also referred to Nandi v General Medical Council [2004] EWHC (Admin) and Khan v Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin).

64.    The Panel was aware that Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: “a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence”. 

65.    The Panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the fact of the conviction was found proven due to the admission of the Registrant and the Certificate of Conviction, accordingly the ground of conviction was also satisfied.

66.    The Panel considered the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and Standards 2016 and found that the facts found proved amounted to breaches of the following standards: -

1.8 You must consider the potential impact that the position of power and trust you hold as a health and care professional may have on individuals when in social or personal settings;
1.9 You must take action to set and maintain appropriate professional boundaries with service users, carers and colleagues
1.9 You must use appropriate methods of communication to provide care and other services related to your practice
1.12 You must not abuse your position as a health and care practitioner to pursue personal, sexual, emotional or financial relationships with service users, carers or colleagues 
2.9 You must use all forms of communication with colleagues and other health and care professionals responsibly, including media-sharing networks and social networking sites
2.10 You must use media-sharing networks and social networking sites responsibly
2.12 You must use media-sharing networks and social networking sites responsibly, maintaining professional boundaries at all times and protecting service user/carer privacy
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
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

67.    The Panel also found the facts admitted and found proven amounted to breaches of the following Standards of Proficiency for Physiotherapists 2023:-

2.1 maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct 
2.4 understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council, including, but not limited to, the standards of conduct, performance and ethics
2.11 recognise the power imbalance that comes with being a healthcare professional, and ensure they do not abuse this for personal gain
3.1 understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct
7.1 use effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate with service users, carers, colleagues and others
8.1 work in partnership with service users, carers, colleagues and others
14.1 understand the need to maintain the safety of themself and others, including service users, carers and colleagues

68.    The Panel considered the findings to be serious, some being sexually motivated and sexual in nature, involving a student vulnerable by virtue of her status. The conduct caused harm to Student A.

69.    The Panel had found that the conduct breached a number of standards, was directed towards a younger female student, representing a power imbalance, breaching professional boundaries, and there was a concerning escalation in that behaviour within a matter of days.

70.    The Panel looked at each Particular to determine whether it amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Panel referred itself to the written evidence and considered that these Particulars represent a serious departure from the standards expected of a HCPC registered Physiotherapist. The conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional and was targeted towards a younger female student where there was a clear power imbalance. The Panel also considered that the conduct was deliberate, targeted and represented a breach of professional boundaries.

71.    The misconduct was serious, sexually motivated, sexual in nature, and fell far short of what would be expected and what would be considered proper in the circumstances. The behaviour represented over familiarity in a professional relationship. The Panel considered that fellow practitioners would consider the conduct to be ‘deplorable’. The Panel concluded that the conduct within these Particulars amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

72.    The Panel heard submissions from Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC on the issue of impairment.

73.    Mr Doyle highlighted that harm had been caused to Student A and there had been an escalation in the behaviour culminating in a sexual assault. In relation to the personal component, it was submitted that there had been little evidence of insight, remediation and reflection to mitigate the risk of any repetition. 

74.    Mr Doyle invited the Panel to consider that the misconduct found proven was so serious that finding the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired would undermine both public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

75.    The Panel received and accepted the advice from the Legal Assessor and was referred to the Practice Note on ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’. In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public components and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired at the current time.

76.    The Panel considered the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) which adopted and clarified the test for impairment of fitness to practise, which was formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman Inquiry with reference to the following questions:-

a. Has the Registrant acted in the past (or is liable to act in the future) in a way that puts patients at unwarranted risk of harm.

b. Has the Registrant brought (or is liable to bring) the profession into 
disrepute.

c. Has the Registrant breached (or is liable to breach) one of the 
fundamental tenets of the profession.

d.  Has the Registrant acted dishonestly.

77.    The Panel considered that limbs a, b and c were engaged in this case. The Panel noted the witness statement of Student A referred to her feeling ‘scared and upset’, she stated she was ‘shaken up’ by what had happened. The former boyfriend of Student A stated ‘Since this incident has happened this has had a big impact on how [Student A] now is as a person’. The Panel concluded that harm had been caused to Student A, and there was a potential for service user harm, as the Registrant had displayed a blatant disregard for professional boundaries.

78.    The seriousness of the conduct admitted and found proved had brought the profession into disrepute as his conduct would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners.

79.    The Panel found that the Registrant had breached fundamental tenets of the profession, to act with integrity and decency, promote and protect the interest of service users, and to communicate effectively.

80.    The Registrant had not attended the hearing and had failed to provide the evidence required to satisfy the Panel that he had remediated to negate the risk of repetition. Accordingly, the Panel could not be satisfied that the conduct would not be repeated in the future.

81.    The Panel considered the factors affecting the seriousness of the concerns. The Panel reminded itself of the reasons why it had found the facts proven and was of the view that: -

•    There were multiple serious breaches of the Standards on Conduct, Performance and Ethics, representing a significant departure from the standards expected of a registered Physiotherapist, and the impact on public confidence in the profession had been undermined;

•    The conduct admitted and found proven had the potential to place patients, service users, colleagues and the public at risk of harm;

•     There was harm caused to Student A and the conduct was capable of impacting on the delivery of care and safe practise with the potential for harm to be caused;

•    The conduct was focussed on one individual who was the subject of repeated communications from the Registrant which escalated and led to a sexual assault being committed upon  her;

•    The failings involved a vulnerable female student by virtue of the power imbalance;

•    The Registrant had abused his professional position with a student;

•    The conduct involved sexual misconduct and could be considered predatory;

•    The remediation is incomplete, and full insight is lacking such that the Panel could not rule out the risk of repetition at this time.

82.    In reaching its decision the Panel considered both the personal and the public component and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired at the current time. 

83.    In considering the personal component the Panel considered the principles set out by Mr Justice Silber in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin):-

a. are the acts or omissions which led to the allegation remediable? 
b. has the registrant taken remedial action? 
c. are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated?

84.    The Panel considered that the behaviour would be extremely difficult to remediate as attitudinal and behavioural concerns involving sexual misconduct can be more difficult to remediate. There was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant has taken remedial action to avoid the risk of repetition.

85.    The Panel considered the statements submitted by the Registrant but was concerned that there was still limited accountability by him for what had occurred, and limited understanding of the seriousness of the situation, how the failings would impact public confidence in the profession, or how it might be perceived by colleagues. 

86.    The Panel considered the insight demonstrated to be inward looking, focusing on the impact upon him, without the Registrant recognising how the conduct would impact Student A or public confidence in the profession, the power imbalance, or how it might be perceived by colleagues.

87.    The Registrant would have access to resources from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists to evidence development and insight into his actions. He has failed to do so.

88.    The Panel noted that the Registrant was referred to undertake professional boundaries training, but it had not been provided with evidence that this had been completed. Whilst the Registrant referenced his compliance with his criminal sentence, the Panel considered that this was mandatory. The Panel concluded that it could not rule out the risk of repetition at this time due to the lack of insight, the absence of reflections or any evidence of remediation.

89.    There was no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant was able to control himself to avoid repetition of the conduct.

90.    The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public, and whilst the conduct was not directed towards a service user, the Registrant was engaged in a professional capacity whilst he was messaging a student under his care and engaged in sexual contact without her consent. The Panel’s duty is to protect the public from harm and the risk of harm.  

91.    The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant is currently impaired. 

92.    The Panel next went on to consider the public component and looked at the ‘critically important public policy issues’. The public is entitled to expect that registrants act in the best interests of service users, with decency, honesty and integrity.

93.    Due to the lack of evidence that the Registrant has developed insight and remediated, there is a risk of future repetition which would place the public, colleagues and service users at a risk of harm from the Registrant.

94.    The Panel considered that the conduct involved an element of grooming, was sexually predatory, and was an abuse of the Registrant’s professional trusted position as a lecturer.

95.    The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct and fell far short of what would be expected of a professional. The misconduct found proved is sufficiently serious that a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not impaired would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

96.    The Panel reminded itself that the findings involved conduct which was sexually motivated, sexual in nature, directed towards a younger female student where there was a power imbalance, and crossed professional boundaries.

97.    The Panel found that the misconduct was so serious that the public interest demands a finding of impairment. On any view the findings are serious and would cause the public concern if there was no finding of impairment. It is not acceptable for a registered healthcare professional to communicate with students and commit sexual acts without consent, in a manner which undermines confidence.

98.    The Panel found that the conviction was so serious that the public interest would demand a finding of impairment. The Registrant was given a two-year Community Order and placed on the ‘sex offenders register’ for five years. 

99.    The Panel found that the Registrant had breached a number of Standards and had failed to act in accordance with fundamental tenets of the profession, which brings the profession into disrepute. The regulatory process is in place to ensure professional standards are maintained and to ensure that the public has confidence in those who treat them. The conduct involved a significant departure from the good character expected of a HCPC registered Physiotherapist, and the Registrant would be unlikely to secure HCPC registration with a conviction of this kind involving registration as a ‘sex offender’.

100.    The Panel was satisfied on the public component that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

101.    The Panel found the Registrant to be impaired on both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction

102.    Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC made representations on sanction with reference to the Sanctions Policy and confirmed that the HCPC remained neutral on the issue of sanction and left this as a matter of judgement for the Panel.

103.    The Panel was referred to the Sanctions Policy dated 02 March 2026 and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the primary purpose of any sanction is to protect the public and that it should give appropriate weight to the wider public interest which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

104.    The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the proper approach to the making of a decision on sanction. A sanction should never be imposed with the intention of punishing a registrant against whom a finding has been made. Rather, although a sanction might have a punitive effect, it should only be imposed, if required, to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and regulation of it, and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. 

105.    The Panel was aware that if a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in ascending order of gravity. The Panel also acknowledged that it must be satisfied that the sanction is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

106.    The Panel reminded itself of the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the public interest and was mindful that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public from harm and to maintain public confidence in both the profession and in the regulator. 

107.    The Panel referred itself to the factors affecting seriousness and considered the findings were particularly serious due to the following factors:- 
•    Breach of professional boundaries within the lecturer / student relationship;
•    Predatory behaviour in seeking to take advantage of Student A where there was an unequal balance of power;
•    Student A was vulnerable by virtue of the professional relationship which existed with the Registrant;
•    The conduct was sexual in nature and sexually motivated;
•    The Registrant is included on the sex offender’s database;
•    The Registrant was convicted of a serious sexual offence and was made subject to a Community Order.

108.    The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s culpability in relation to the Particulars found proven and the criminal conviction. It cannot be said that the Registrant was reckless, his actions were suggestive of a person who intended to pursue his sexual interest in a student. The Panel considered the actions to be deliberate and not isolated in nature.

109.    The Panel referred itself to the Sanctions Policy and found the following mitigating features present:-
•    The Registrant had demonstrated limited insight into his conduct, although it balanced this against the fact that the insight was incomplete as there was no evidence of reflections and learning;
•    The Registrant expressed remorse for his actions; 

110.    The Panel also noted that the Registrant reported complying with his criminal sentence, although that was mandatory, so little weight was attached to this. The Panel further noted that the Registrant reported removing himself from social media and was to undertake a course on professional boundaries. The Panel did not have any evidence to support this limited remediation and so again was unable to attach much weight to it.

111.    The Panel took account of the admissions made by the Registrant which avoided the need for Student A to give evidence. The Panel also considered the information provided in the four character references.

112.    The Panel noted that there were no previous fitness to practise issues reported.

113.    The Panel found the following aggravating features present:-
•    There was a significant breach of trust;
•    The Registrant engaged in a pattern of unacceptable behaviour;
•    Harm was caused to Student A;

114.    The relationship between the Registrant, as a lecturer, and a student is based upon trust, confidence and professionalism. The relationship between a lecturer and student is one in which there is an unequal balance of power, in favour of the Registrant. Whilst Registrants should endeavour to have positive relationships with their students, it is essential that they remain aware of the dynamic and take care not to abuse their position.

115.    The Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics require registrants to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust in them and their profession. This means being honest and trustworthy and acting in the best interests of service users, as well as ensuring that their relationships remain professional. Where a registrant is found to have abused their professional status, this is highly likely to reduce the public’s trust in them and their profession.

116.    The Panel noted paragraph 110 of the Sanctions Policy which states:-
‘A registrant’s behaviour should be considered predatory where they seek to take advantage of others, motivated by a desire to initiate or pursue a sexual or otherwise inappropriate relationship with a service user, carer or colleague, for example a vulnerable or more junior colleague or where there is an unequal balance of power’.

And paragraph 111 which states:-

‘The panel should take predatory behaviour particularly seriously, as there will often be significant risk to the targeted service user, carer or colleague’.

117.    The Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct was predatory, motivated by a desire to engage in a sexual relationship with Student A and it escalated in gravity within days, resulting in a sexual assault.

118.    The Panel further noted paragraph 117 of the Sanctions Policy which states:-
‘Sexual misconduct or sexually motivated misconduct is a very serious matter that has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession’.

119.    The Panel was aware that the Registrant was made subject to registration as a ‘sex offender’ for a period of five years and it took account of paragraph 129 which states:-
‘Inclusion on a sex offenders’ database serves to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. A panel should normally regard allowing a registrant to remain in, or return to, unrestricted practice while they are on a sex offenders’ database as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public and likely lead to strike off’.

120.    The Panel was mindful of the guidance offered by Newman J in Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council & Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) which stated that, as a general principle, where a Registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, they should not be permitted to resume practice until satisfactory completion of a criminal sentence. The Panel had no information to support the Registrant’s assertion that he had completed his Community Order and was aware that the Registrant will be subject to registration as a ‘sex offender’ until 2030.

121.    The Panel found the Allegation to be very serious. The Panel was concerned by the limited insight, remediation and reflection. It concluded that there was a high risk of repetition.

122.    In light of the above, the Panel did not feel that this matter could be concluded with either no order or a caution. It did not consider these to be appropriate or adequate sanctions due to the serious nature of the Allegation, and the requirement to protect the public from harm and ensure that confidence in the regulatory process is maintained. The Panel concluded that some restriction on the Registrant’s practice was necessary to address the serious nature of the Allegation.

123.    The Panel next considered a conditions of practice order. Due to the lack of developed insight, or remediation and the concerns not being clinical in nature, the Panel could not be satisfied that any conditions would be workable. Nor did it consider that a conditions of practice order would be sufficient to address the serious nature of the Allegation or adequately address the public interest concerns.

124.    Further, the Panel considered paragraph 155 of the Sanctions Policy which states, ‘Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving…a serious breach of professional boundaries, abuse of professional position… involving a vulnerable person; conduct which is sexual in nature or sexually motivated, inclusion on a sexual offenders database, and criminal convictions for serious offences’.

125.    The Panel found that due to the attitudinal and sexually motivated nature of the conduct there were no conditions it could impose to address the concerns which would be workable, appropriate or proportionate. The Allegation is too serious to be concluded in this way.

126.    The Panel determined that a conditions of practice order would not be appropriate or workable and would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulator. The Panel considered that the Registrant posed a risk of harm to the public which could not adequately be managed with conditions of practice.

127.    The Panel next considered a suspension order. The Sanctions Policy outlines that a suspension order is likely to be appropriate where:-
•    ‘the registrant has insight; 
•    the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and 
•    there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings…’.

128.    The Panel found that there was only limited evidence of insight by the Registrant into his behaviour. The Panel could not rule out the risk of repetition which would lead to the potential for serious harm.

129.    Due to the nature and seriousness of the conduct, which was persistent and not isolated, and the strong public interest element, the Panel did not consider that a 12-month suspension would adequately address the concerns identified. 

130.    The conduct which led to the conviction demonstrates a pattern of concerning behaviour by the Registrant. The public would be extremely concerned if the regulator were to permit the Registrant to return to practice whilst included on a sexual offenders database. The public would find it inconceivable that a professional with such a requirement was permitted to practise. The Panel considered that the conduct was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

131.    The Panel could not envisage a return to practise for this Registrant in the short to medium term, or even long term, if at all, and was of the view that a suspension order would not offer a sufficient level of protection to service users and the wider public due to the gravity of the behaviour.

132.    The Panel went on to consider a striking off order which removes a Registrant’s name from the Register and prohibits the Registrant from practising their profession.

133.    Paragraph 179 of the Sanctions Policy states ‘A striking off order will be appropriate for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts which may include… a serious breach of professional boundaries, abuse of professional position…  involving a vulnerable person; conduct which is sexual in nature or sexually motivated, inclusion on a sexual offenders’ database, and criminal convictions for serious offences’.

134.    The Panel also noted paragraph 180 which states:- 

‘A striking off order is likely to be appropriate, whether or not the conduct is included in the examples of such conduct in the list above, where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. Some examples of such conduct include (this list is not exhaustive), where the registrant: 
•    lacks insight; 
•    continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence (for example, due to not attempting to engage with any remediation); or 
•    is unwilling to resolve matters’.

135.    The Panel found the conduct to be serious, persistent and deliberate and there were multiple factors present in this case reflecting the seriousness of the Allegation. The Panel had no evidence that the Registrant had fully developed insight into his actions or was willing to resolve matters. Accordingly, there remains a high risk of repetition.

136.    The Panel found that the matters admitted and found proved were serious in nature and the Registrant had failed to acknowledge the impact of his actions on the victim, or the impact they would have on colleagues, or the reputation of the profession. For an Allegation of this kind, with the potential to cause serious harm, the Panel considered that no lesser sanction than a striking off order was sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest. 

137.    In making this decision, the Panel was aware that it has to act proportionately. The Panel considered the impact of the striking off order on the Registrant and was of the view that the public protection and public interest considerations outweigh the Registrant’s own interests. Further, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order enables public confidence in the profession and its regulation to be maintained.

138.    The striking off order is both necessary and proportionate to protect members of the public from the risk of harm that the Registrant poses, and to meet the public interest in maintaining confidence both in the profession and the HCPC. The Panel considered that any lesser sanction was insufficient to mark the seriousness of the conduct, and to uphold public confidence in the profession and its regulator.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Allan McRoberts from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

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

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

Interim Order

Application

1.    Mr Doyle submitted that the Panel should consider covering the appeal period by imposing an 18-month Interim Suspension Order on the Registrant’s registration. He submitted that such an order was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.

Decision

2.    The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

3.    The Panel noted that the Registrant had been informed by the Notice of Hearing dated 01 June 2026 that if this Panel found the case against him to be well founded and imposed a sanction which removes, suspends or restricts his right to practise, the HCPC may make an application to the Panel to impose an interim order to cover any appeal period. The Notice of Hearing clearly stated that, ‘An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.’ For the reasons set out in its earlier decision to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel determined that it would be fair and in the interests of justice to consider an interim order application in the Registrant’s absence.

4.    The Panel paid careful regard to the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Interim Orders’, which offer guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. The guidance states that registrants should be made aware of the potential for an interim order to be imposed on their registration after the panel has made a substantive order and should be given an opportunity to make representations in respect of an interim order. 

5.    The Panel recognised that its power to impose an interim order is discretionary and that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Striking Off Order has been imposed. The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. However, the Panel was mindful of its findings in relation to the Registrant’s conduct and conviction and the risk of repetition if the Registrant were able to practise without restriction.

6.    The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Suspension Order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the wider public interest to maintain confidence in the regulatory process.

7.    The period of this Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined. 

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 Allan James Mcroberts