Glen J Winter-Nolan

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.         The Panel was provided with a service bundle, which contained the notice of hearing, dated 9 June 2026, the Certificate of Registration, confirming the Registrant’s registered email address and a confirmation of delivery receipt. The notice provided information about the time, date and method of joining the hearing.

2.          Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that notice had been served in accordance with the Rules.

Application to proceed in absence

3.          Ms Girven, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She drew the Panel’s attention to the factors set out in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant. She informed the Panel that no communications had been received from the Registrant in response to the notice of hearing itself, and further, that the last communication from him had been received in July 2025, and as such, there was no indication that he would attend a future hearing if the case were adjourned. Ms Girven submitted that the allegations dated back a considerable time and that it was in the public interest to proceed with the case.

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

5.          The Panel bore in mind that a registrant has a responsibility to engage with the Regulator, but in this case, there had been no communication from him since July 2025, which was over a year ago. The Panel noted that the scheduled final hearing had been adjourned in May 2026 when the allegations were amended, so that the Registrant would have the opportunity to consider the additional allegation of dishonesty against him. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not communicated with the HCPC following that adjournment and it considered that all the information indicated that the Registrant had disengaged from the process. Accordingly, the Panel considered that there was no indication that he would engage if the matter were adjourned. The Panel was satisfied that his absence was voluntary and did not consider that any further adjournment would serve any useful purpose.

6.          In terms of any disadvantage to proceeding in the Registrant’s absence, the Panel noted from the HCPTS Practice Note that there may be an inherent disadvantage to a registrant in proceeding in their absence, particularly in cases where dishonesty is alleged. However, in this case, the Panel considered that the Registrant had been given notice of the additional charge and of the hearing itself, but had nevertheless continued not to engage, bringing the disadvantage onto himself. Balanced against this, the Panel also considered the wider public interest and the need to deal with cases expeditiously, noting that the incident leading to the conviction dates back to 2022. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered that there was no good reason for the Registrant’s non-attendance and that it was in the public interest to proceed with the case, even though that meant it would be heard in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

7.          The Registrant is an Occupational Therapist who first registered with the HCPC in 2014.

8.          On 12 July 2024, the HCPC received an anonymous complaint alleging that the Registrant had been charged with a number of criminal offences arising from incidents which occurred on 29 September 2022.

9.          The HCPC investigated the allegations and received confirmation from Kent Police that the Registrant had been charged with a number of criminal offences on 17 March 2023.

10.       On 11 November 2024, at Woolwich Crown Court, the Registrant was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in respect of Person A, committed on 29 September 2022.

11.       As set out in the Judge’s sentencing remarks, the offences occurred in a domestic setting. The Judge set out at the sentencing hearing, which was held in public, the facts of the two offences for which he was sentencing the Registrant as follows:

On 29 September 2022, you had been in a relationship with [Person A] since January 2021, and had become engaged in December [2021]. You were living with [Person A] in her maisonette with her adult daughter [Person C]. The evidence at trial was that there had been tensions in the run up to 29 September about the use to which the third bedroom would be put. It was being used by [Person C] as a dressing room and you wanted bunk beds to be installed so that your three children could be more comfortable when they came to stay.
On 29 September 2022 you put up the bunk beds. [Person A’s] evidence was that you had been drinking and were drunk by the time that she returned from work at about quarter to five. There was an argument about what would happen to a desk that had been in [Person C’s] dressing room. [Person A] left the Maisonet to go to her mother’s house and returned. There was a further argument about the fact that you had put the desk in the communal bins, and [Person A’s] evidence was that she slapped you in the face. [Person A] then threatened to call her brother or the police and you went to grab the phone from her hand. She heard her fingers crack and saw that her nail beds were bleeding. This was the first ABH.
You then went upstairs and threatened to smash up [Person C’s] bedroom. [Person C] followed you and the argument continued. [Person A’s] evidence was that there was then a further argument between yourself and [Person A] in which you threatened to smash up the living room. In the course of this argument, you head-butted [Person A] using what she described as eight out of ten in terms of force. This was the second ABH…
The injuries suffered by [Person A] were agreed at trial (…) and included a large haematoma on her forehead, feelings of dizziness, and headache, a swelling to the central frontal eyebrow, a fracture to the third and fourth right fingers and subsequent symptoms of forgetfulness, poor concentration and facial pain. [Person A] also gave evidence of the emotional impact that these offences have had on her.

12.       The Registrant was sentenced to 18 months custody, suspended for two years. There was also a requirement that the Registrant attend the Building Better Relationships programme for 40 days, a rehabilitation activity requirement of 20 days and an unpaid work requirement of 40 hours. A restraining order of five years was also made in relation to the complainants. 

13.       According to Standard 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (the Standards), the Registrant was required to inform the HCPC as soon as possible of the fact that he had been charged.

Standard 9.5.a states:
You must tell us as soon as possible if:
you accept a caution from the police or have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence.

14.       It is alleged that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC at any point from 17 March 2023, the date he was charged, to 12 July 2024, the date that the HCPC was informed anonymously that he had been charged. 

15.       During this time, the Registrant was subject to other fitness to practise proceedings with the HCPC, with a final hearing taking place from 6 to 24 November 2023 and a review hearing in respect of sanction on 22 August 2024. It is alleged that at no point during these proceedings did the Registrant inform the HCPC that he had been charged with criminal offences. It is alleged that the Registrant’s omission in disclosing as soon as possible that he had been charged with the criminal offences was dishonest.

Decision on Facts

16.       The Panel was provided with a bundle including a witness statement and exhibits, prepared on behalf of the HCPC in support of its case. The Panel heard evidence from Ms Rachel Murphy, an Operational Manager within the HCPC fitness to practise department. The exhibits provided to the Panel included:

·       The certificate of conviction;
·       A copy of the Judge’s sentencing remarks;
·       An email from the Criminal Appeal Office, dated 14 July 2026, to the effect that the Registrant’s application to appeal had been refused by a single judge and had not been renewed by the Registrant and had therefore lapsed on 7 April 2026;
·       A copy of the HCPC’s Guidance on how and when to make a self-referral;
·       A copy of the Conduct and Competence Committee’s final hearing determination, regarding the fitness to practise case heard from 6 to 24 November 2023;
·       A copy of the Conduct and Competence Committee’s review determination, regarding the fitness to practise case heard on 22 August 2024;
·       A copy of the Standards; and
·       Documentation received from the Registrant, including:
                                                    i.     Correspondence to him from HM Prison and Probation Service;
                                                   ii.     Correspondence to him from HM Courts and Tribunal Service; and
                                                 iii.     Correspondence from Kent Police.

17.       The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that the burden of proof is on the HCPC, and the required standard of proof is the civil standard, namely whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred. In relation to proof of a conviction the Legal Assessor advised that a Certificate of Conviction, or in Scotland, an extract of conviction was admissible of proof of that conviction and the finding of fact upon which it was based. In relation to dishonesty, she advised in accordance with the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and Barton and Booth v R [2020] EWCA Criminal 575.

Particular 1
On 11 November 2024, you were convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of two offences of assault a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm contrary to The Offences Against the Person Act 1861. 

18.       The Panel finds particular 1 proved.

19.       The Panel took account of the Certificate of Conviction (the Certificate) from Woolwich Crown Court, which recorded that the Registrant had been convicted by a jury after trial of the two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), which occurred on 29 September 2022. Although the Certificate had not been signed, the Panel had also been provided with a copy of the email, dated 13 November 2024, enclosing the Certificate which satisfied the Panel that it had been sent by the Court Clerk at Woolwich Crown Court. 

20.       The Panel also had regard to the Sentencing Remarks of the Judge who had conducted the trial, and which set out the factual basis on which the Registrant was to be sentenced and the sentence the judge imposed.

21.       The Panel was satisfied that this was cogent evidence to satisfy it that on 11 November 2024, the Registrant had been convicted of two offences of ABH at Woolwich Crown Court.
 
Particular 2
You did not inform the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) as soon as possible that you had been charged with the offences in Particular 1 above.

22.       The Panel finds particular 2 proved. 

23.       The Panel noted that the Certificate of Conviction itself recorded that the Registrant had been charged with the criminal offences of ABH on 17 March 2023.The Panel had regard to Standard 9.5 which requires a registrant to disclose to the HCPC as soon as possible that he has been charged with a criminal offence. The Panel had regard to the evidence of Ms Murphy to the effect that she had reviewed the HCPC’s fitness to practise case management and there was no record that the Registrant had made a self-referral between 17 March 2023 and 12 July 2024, which was when the HCPC received such information through an anonymous source and then started its own enquiries to confirm the accuracy of the information. Ms Murphy confirmed that if the Registrant had contacted the HCPC, including by telephone, post, email or online, to inform it that he had been charged then there would be a record of it on the case management system.

24.       The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had not informed the HCPC at all between 17 March 2023 and 12 July 2024 that he had been charged on 17 March 2023 with the criminal offences of ABH.

Particular 3
Your actions in particular 2 were dishonest. 

25.       The Panel finds particular 3 proved.

26.       The Panel first considered the Registrant’s state of mind objectively.

27.       The Panel accepted from the information set out within the Judge’s sentencing remarks that the Registrant was going through a difficult time in his private life and that the criminal proceedings following charge would have been challenging for him. Nevertheless, the Panel had regard to the evidence of Ms Murphy, which made clear that the HCPC website contains guidance for registrants on making a self-referral to the HCPC and that registrants are required to declare any changes relating to their good character as part of the registration renewal process which she said occurs every two years. The Panel noted that the Registrant had first registered with the HCPC in 2014 and then would have had to renew his registration several times subsequently until 17 March 2023 when he was charged with the offences. Ms Murphy also stated that information on the Standards was made available to registrants on their first registration and at each subsequent renewal. The Panel considered that the Registrant should have been fully aware of his obligations regarding what he was required to disclose to the HCPC, given that he had been registered since 2014.

28.       The Panel considered that there was evidence before it to indicate not only that the Registrant should have known his disclosure obligations but also that the Registrant did indeed know of his disclosure obligations. It reached this view in light of an email he had sent to the HCPC, dated 14 July 2025, in which he stated that he had previously been advised that, with an ongoing criminal investigation, he should not put himself at risk of prejudicing the impending trial, as the law superseded his professional policy. The Panel considered that this email indicated that the Registrant had an awareness of his disclosure obligations and had taken the conscious decision not to disclose anything to the HCPC, including simply the fact of having been charged with criminal offences. The Panel noted from Ms Murphy’s evidence that there was no record of the Registrant ever having contacted the HCPC at all regarding his circumstances, even for advice about what he should disclose.

29.       The Panel also noted that the Registrant had been going through fitness to practise proceedings at that time, which, in the Panel’s view, would have brought him in regular contact with the HCPC, giving him clear opportunity to disclose, as well as bringing to the forefront of his mind, the importance of the HCPC Standards. In the Panel’s view, he would also know the seriousness of not adhering to the Standards.

30.       In terms of the subjective state of the Registrant’s mind, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware that he had been charged with criminal offences, knew that he had disclosure obligations in respect of the criminal offences with which he had been charged and had taken the conscious decision not to disclose that he had been charged. He had, according to his email of 14 July 2025, apparently done this on advice, but the information about this was scant, so the Panel did not consider that this was credible advice.

31.       The Panel considered that by the standards of ordinary and decent people, the Registrant’s actions would be regarded as dishonest. In reaching this view, the Panel considered that ordinary and decent people would expect a registered professional of over 10 years to know their professional obligations to disclose and to follow those professional obligations and would regard the actions of a registrant who had consciously decided not to as dishonest. 

Decision on Grounds

32.       The Panel heard submissions from Ms Givern, on behalf of the HCPC. 

33.       The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In relation to misconduct, she advised the Panel in respect of a number of cases, including Roylance v GMC (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 311. The Legal Assessor advised that for conduct to amount to misconduct, it must fall short of what would be expected in the circumstances and that such a falling short must be serious and fall far below the expected standards. The Legal Assessor advised that the question of whether or not the facts found proved amounted to misconduct as alleged, was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement.
Conviction

34.       Having found the facts proved in respect of the Registrant’s convictions from 2024, the Panel was satisfied that the convictions in themselves amounted to the statutory ground of conviction.

Misconduct

35.       The Panel considered whether the facts found proved at particulars 2 and 3 amounted to misconduct. In doing so, the Panel had regard to Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, 2016 (the Standards). Although Ms Givern had referenced a number of Proficiency Standards from the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Occupational Therapists, 2023 (Proficiency Standards), the Panel considered that these were more applicable to competency based allegations, and in any event were largely a duplication of the Standards. In particular it had regard to Standards 9.1 and 9.5 of the Standards as follows:

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

9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if:

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

36.       The Panel considered that particular 2 was serious. It was serious because the Registrant’s omission in informing the HCPC of the fact that he had been charged with the criminal offences had the potential to interfere with the HCPC’s oversight of Registrants as well as its ability to carry out its functions in respect of public protection and maintaining public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that the seriousness of particular 2 was compounded by particular 3 in that the Panel had found that the Registrant’s omission in informing the HCPC that he had been charged with the criminal offences was dishonest. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s dishonest non-disclosure had occurred in respect of his professional responsibilities which was also serious. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions in respect of particulars 2 and 3 had fallen far below the Standards expected of him as a registered professional. Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment  

37.       The Panel next went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a consequence of his conviction and/or his misconduct.

38.       Ms Girven submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired both by reason of his misconduct and by reason of his convictions. In respect of each, she submitted that there was no evidence of insight or remediation. Specifically in respect of the dishonesty, Ms Girven pointed out that the Registrant had a previous fitness to practise finding of dishonesty in 2024. Specifically in respect of the convictions, Ms Girven submitted that they were concerning because they were for offences of violence committed in anger, which raised concerns about his behaviour in stressful situations. In light of all of that, Ms Girven submitted that there was a risk of repetition, such that the Registrant was impaired on the personal component. Ms Girven further submitted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of current impairment were made and that consequently the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on the public component. 

39.       The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Convictions and Cautions. It also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practice [sic] Impairment, and in particular the two elements of impairment, namely the personal component and the public component.
 
Conviction

40.       The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his convictions.

41.       The Panel considered the personal component.

42.       The Panel considered that the convictions were for serious criminal offences, involving two counts of ABH in a domestic setting, resulting in a suspended custodial sentence. The Crown Court judge had also concluded that the offences were committed under the influence of alcohol. Whilst the Panel considered that the conduct underpinning the convictions appeared to be attitudinal in nature, it considered that it may potentially be remediable. In reaching this view, the Panel noted the comments of the Crown Court judge in his sentencing remarks when he concluded that the custodial sentence for the convictions could be suspended. He announced:

I have concluded that this is a sentence that can be suspended. In doing so, I have taken into consideration the view expressed in the presentence report, that you would benefit from offending behaviour work, including the building better relationships programme and work on victim empathy. From the evidence I saw at trial, I agree that you are someone who would benefit from these programmes. 

43.       However, although the Panel was of the view that the Registrant’s conduct underpinning the convictions may potentially be remediable, it had no evidence before it that the Registrant had taken any meaningful steps towards remediation. The Panel bore in mind that he had disengaged from the HCPC process in July 2025 and there had been no communication from him since then and no engagement from him regarding this final hearing. As such, the Panel had no recent evidence before it relevant to any insight, remorse or remediation.

44.       In relation to the observations of the Crown Court Judge to the effect that the Registrant would benefit from work regarding building better relationships and victim empathy, the Panel noted that they related to court ordered activities which would have consequences for non-compliance. Furthermore, although the Registrant had provided letters from the probation service confirming his completion of the unpaid work requirement of his suspended sentence order, the letters also confirmed that, aside from completing four hours of the rehabilitation requirement, the remainder of that requirement together with the building better relationships requirement were no longer required to be completed by him due to lack of resources within the probation service. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that this would not have been the Registrant’s fault, the effect was that the Registrant had not undertaken such work, and there was no information before it that he had undertaken any other steps independently to address those issues.

45.       A further consequence of the Registrant’s non-engagement was that the Panel had no information before it of whether he may have developed any insight into his behaviour underpinning the convictions, in particular its impact on the complainant or, in respect of the convictions themselves, on the reputation of the profession. The Panel also had no information of any insight developed or practical steps undertaken to address the triggers for the Registrant’s behaviour, potentially including alcohol, for why the Registrant had behaved as he had. In all the circumstances, given the absence of information, the Panel considered that there remained a risk of repetition.

46.       Given the identified risk of repetition, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component by reason of his convictions.

47.       In relation to the public component, the Panel considered that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in respect of the Registrant’s convictions. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel bore in mind that they were convictions for violence in a domestic setting, potentially committed under the influence of alcohol, and resulting in injury to the complainant. The Panel also considered that the convictions would raise concerns for members of the public about the Registrant’s future behaviour in stressful situations, given the absence of insight and remorse to address the behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component by reason of his convictions.

Misconduct

48.       The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct.

49.       The Panel considered the personal component.

50.       The Panel bore in mind that dishonesty is considered difficult to remediate as it is attitudinal in nature and may be a character trait. Nevertheless, the Panel considered that the Registrant may potentially be capable of remediating such misconduct, for example through insight and practical steps. It also noted that the misconduct in this case was through omission as opposed to active steps, which may make it easier than other dishonesty to remedy.

51.       However, as identified in respect of the convictions, the Panel had no evidence before it that the Registrant had taken any meaningful steps towards remediation in respect of his dishonest lack of disclosure to his Regulator. As previously identified, the Registrant disengaged from the HCPC process in July 2025 and there had been no communication from him since then and no engagement from him regarding this final hearing. As such, the Panel had no recent evidence before it relevant to any insight, remorse or remediation.

52.       The Panel also bore in mind that the Registrant had a fitness to practise history whereby he had previously been found to be dishonest in his professional practice. That dishonesty related to reproducing text from a colleague’s portfolio, as if it was his own, during his application for a more senior role. The dishonesty related to 2019, the final hearing was over several days in November 2023 when a Suspension Order was imposed, which was reviewed and allowed to lapse on 22 August 2024. In the Panel’s judgement, this previous finding of dishonesty aggravated the seriousness of the misconduct. Furthermore, given the Registrant’s fitness to practise history, together with the absence of any evidence of insight, remorse or remediation, the Panel considered that there was an ongoing risk of repetition that the Registrant may act dishonestly in the future. 

53.       Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal component by reason of his misconduct.

54.       In relation to the public component, the Panel considered that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in respect of the Registrant’s misconduct. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel bore in mind that the misconduct included dishonesty, and it was not the first time that the Registrant had been found to be dishonest by a fitness to practise panel at the HCPC. The Panel also considered that the misconduct, in particular the dishonesty, represented a significant departure from the Standards, such that it would bring the profession into disrepute. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component by reason of his misconduct.

Decision on Sanction

55.       Having determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of conviction and misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether it was impaired to a degree which required actions to be taken on his registration. The Panel took account of the submissions of Ms Girven on behalf of the HCPC and had regard to all the material previously before it. 

56.       The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and exercised its independent judgement. It had regard to the HCPTS Sanctions Policy (the Policy) and considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel understood that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive but to protect members of the public and to safeguard the public interest which includes upholding standards within the profession, as well as maintaining public confidence in the profession and its regulatory process.

57.       The Panel identified the mitigating and aggravating factors, and evaluated them in respect of each sanction under consideration.

58.       The Panel did not identify any mitigating factors.

59.       The Panel had regard to the guidance in the Policy about what may aggravate the seriousness of the concerns. It did not consider that the Policy provided an exhaustive list. The Panel considered the following to be the relevant aggravating factors:

·       Repetition of the concerns. In this case, the Panel had regard to the Registrant’s previous fitness to practise history and the previous finding of dishonesty against him, and considered that there had been a repetition of dishonesty;
·       Lack of insight. In this case, the Panel considered that, as a consequence of the Registrant’s disengagement from the HCPC process, there was an absence of any information to demonstrate insight;
·       Lack of remediation. In this case, the Panel considered that, as a consequence of the Registrant’s disengagement from the HCPC process, there was an absence of any information to demonstrate remediation;
·       Actual harm cause. Although in the Policy, this was in reference to service users, the Panel considered that it was also relevant to the complainant who was the subject of the convictions, and who was caused significant injury, including two fractured fingers.

60.       The Panel also noted the observations in the Policy to the effect that cases involving certain factors or behaviours would be more likely to result in more restrictive sanctions due to their serious nature and incompatibility with the HCPC Standards. From the list of such types of case, the Panel noted that the following were present in the current case:

·       Dishonesty;
·       Criminal convictions…for serious offences; and
·       Violence which is serious or otherwise adversely affects public confidence in the profession. 

61.       The Panel noted that the violence in this case resulted in the criminal convictions, and so should be regarded as one single type of serious case; it was careful not to double count the convictions and violence as aggravating factors.

62.       In terms of assessing the seriousness of the dishonesty itself, the Panel had regard to the specific factors set out in the Policy. It considered that the conduct was not a positive act or acts, rather it was by way of omission, which was a passive role, albeit the duration was over several months, from 17 March 2023 when he was charged, to 12 July 2024, when the HCPC received the anonymous referral informing it that the Registrant had been charged. It was also a second finding of dishonesty against him.

63.       In terms of assessing the seriousness of the convictions for two ABH offences, the Panel again had regard to the specific factors set out in the Policy. It noted that the conduct underpinning the convictions was violence in a domestic setting, which, as already identified, resulted in injury including fractures to two of the complainant’s fingers, and the convictions had resulted in a suspended custodial sentence and restraining order. The Panel considered that the behaviour and resulting convictions were highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in the profession.

64.       The Panel first considered whether a sanction was necessary, and whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired to a degree which required action to be taken on his registration. The Panel was of the view that the case was too serious to take no action, given that the Panel had found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on two statutory grounds and an ongoing risk of repetition. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note, as set out above, to the effect that the dishonesty and convictions for violent offences were serious cases likely to require a more restrictive sanction. The Panel also bore in mind the Registrant’s current non-engagement with the process, meaning it had no up to date information regarding the Registrant’s conduct or of any ongoing remedial steps to address his misconduct. The Panel concluded that some form of sanction was necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

65.       The Panel next considered whether to impose a Caution Order. It had regard to paragraph 147 of the Policy which states:

A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which: 

·       the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature; 

·       there is a low risk of repetition; 

·       the registrant has shown good insight; and

·       the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

66.       The Panel did not consider that this was a case where the issues had been isolated, limited or relatively minor in nature. On the contrary, the Panel considered that the misconduct encompassed two statutory grounds, both of which were identified as serious cases within the Policy. In addition, the Panel had identified an absence of information to demonstrate any insight or remediation, meaning that there was an ongoing risk of repetition. Accordingly, the Panel was not satisfied that a Caution Order was the appropriate, sufficient or proportionate response, as it would neither mark the seriousness of the case, nor protect the public.

67.       The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. It had regard to the Policy, in particular paragraph 153 of the Policy, which sets out the factors which may indicate when a Conditions of Practice Order is appropriate:

A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where: 
·        the registrant has insight; 
·        the concerns are capable of being remedied or managed; 
·        there are no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the registrant from remediating; 
·        appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated; 
·        the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions; 
·        a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and 
·        a panel is satisfied that a registrant may continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm.

68.       The Panel also had regard to paragraph 154, which references a Registrant’s engagement with the process. It states:

Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised, and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practice process…

69.       The Panel noted its earlier findings to the effect that the Registrant’s misconduct, although attitudinal in nature, may be capable of remediation. However, as previously identified, the Panel also bore in mind that it had no information before it to demonstrate that the Registrant had insight or had taken steps to remedy his misconduct. Furthermore, it had no information to reassure it that the Registrant would comply with any conditions, even if conditions could be formulated. In light of this, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant could continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm. In view of this, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order was the appropriate and proportionate response.

70.       The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. In particular, the Panel had regard to paragraph 170 of the Policy and the factors which may indicate that a Suspension Order is appropriate:

·       the registrant has insight; 
·       the issues are unlikely to be repeated; or 
·       there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings, particularly in cases where the registrant has demonstrated they have begun to do so or given a credible explanation for how they will do so.

71.       The Panel had regard to its previous findings at the misconduct and impairment stage, as well as the aggravating factors which it had identified. As previously identified, the Panel had no information before it to demonstrate that the Registrant had insight or had taken steps to remedy his misconduct, which had led the Panel to conclude that there was an ongoing risk of repetition. Furthermore, given the Registrant’s lack of engagement with the HCPC process since July 2025, the Panel had no evidence to suggest that the Registrant would be likely to be able to resolve or remedy his failings.

72.       Given that a Suspension Order did not appear to be the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case, the Panel went on to consider the ultimate sanction of a Strike-Off. In this regard it took account of paragraphs 179 and 180 of the Policy as follows:

Paragraph 179 - A striking off order will be appropriate for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts which may include:

·       Dishonesty;
·       Criminal convictions…for serious offences; and
·       Violence which is serious or otherwise adversely affects public confidence in the profession. 

Paragraph 180 - 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 
·       is unwilling to resolve matters. 
 

73.       The Panel bore in mind that the case was serious, as identified by the Policy, because it had the two aspects of: dishonesty and convictions for violence. In addition, the Registrant’s persistent non-engagement meant that there was no information to demonstrate that the Registrant had insight, leading the Panel to infer that he lacked insight. Whilst there was no evidence to the effect that the Registrant “continues to repeat the misconduct”, the Panel bore in mind that this was a second finding of dishonesty in fitness to practise proceedings, and that it had identified an ongoing risk of repetition. In relation to whether the Registrant was unwilling to resolve matters, the Panel again took account of the Registrant’s non-engagement with the process since July 2025, which was over a year. The Panel inferred from this lengthy period of non-engagement, that the Registrant was unwilling to resolve matters. 

74.       Given all the factors set out above, the Panel, in accordance with paragraph 180, concluded that the nature and gravity of the concerns were such that any lesser sanction than a Strike-Off would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.

75.       The Panel bore in mind the principle of proportionality and acknowledged that a Striking-Off Order has a significant impact on a Registrant. Nevertheless, given the nature and seriousness of the case, the ongoing risk of repetition and the Registrant’s apparent unwillingness to resolve matters, the Panel was satisfied that the public protection and public interest concerns outweighed those of the Registrant.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Glen Winter-Nolan from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1.         Ms Girven, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for an Interim Order of Suspension for 18 months to cover the appeal period before the substantive Striking-Off Order comes into effect. She directed the Panel’s attention to the notice of hearing, in which the prospect of applying for an Interim Order at the end of the hearing was set out. Ms Girven submitted that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and was otherwise in the public interest to cover the duration of the appeal period, given the nature and seriousness of the findings.

Decision

2.          The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the Practice Note on Interim Orders.

3.          The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been given notice within the notice of hearing, dated 9 July 2026, of the HCPC’s intention to apply for an Interim Order at the end of the hearing in the event that a restrictive sanction was imposed. It was further satisfied that it was appropriate and fair to hear and decide the application in his absence for the same reasons it had decided to proceed with the final hearing in the Registrant’s absence.  

4.          The Panel considered whether an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public and concluded that one was necessary. The Panel has found current impaired fitness to practise by reason of conviction and misconduct. It found current impairment on both the personal and public components, concluding that there was an ongoing risk to the public. The Panel, therefore, concluded that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public.

5.          The Panel also considered the wider public interest. The Panel concluded that, having found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, and having imposed a Striking-Order to protect the public and wider public interest from ongoing risk, the public would be shocked and troubled if the Registrant were permitted to practise during the appeal period, given the seriousness of the case and the findings of the Panel. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Order was required to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

6.          Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an Interim Order is necessary to protect the public and is otherwise in the public interest.

7.          The Panel considered an Interim Conditions of Practice Order, but concluded that the case could not be dealt with by way of conditions for the same reasons as set out in the substantive hearing. 

8.          In all the circumstances the Panel determined to make an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months. In deciding to impose this length, it took account of the fact that if the Registrant were to appeal, that process may take a considerable period of time.
 
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 Glen J Winter-Nolan