Christopher Gyiripah

Background

1. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer. The Registrant was employed in that capacity by the Frimley Heath NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) at   Wexham Park Hospital (“the Hospital) from 2017 as a Band 5 Radiographer, becoming a Band 6 Radiographer sometime in 2018.

2. On 12 July 2022 the HCPC received a referral from the Trust concerning the Registrant. The referral stated that he had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct following an internal disciplinary investigation. The referral stated that a complaint had been raised by one of the Registrant’s colleagues on 17 December 2021. 

3. The Trust investigated these concerns and during their investigation another colleague came forward with similar complaints. The colleagues raised concerns regarding the Registrant’s misconduct of a sexual nature towards them while in the workplace.

4. A disciplinary hearing took place on 25 April 2022, when the Registrant was dismissed for gross misconduct. 

5. The Registrant appealed the decision, but his appeal was refused.

6. There are two complainants in the matter, being Colleague D and Colleague E. 

7.    Colleague H was the Radiology General Manager working in the department at the relevant time and was appointed to conduct an investigation into the concerns. She took statements from Colleagues D and E and subsequently interviewed the Registrant during the course of the disciplinary proceedings.

8.    The referral to the HCPC resulted in these proceedings.

Witnesses and documentary evidence 

9.    The HCPC provided the Panel with a hearing bundle which included the witness statements, together with documents which they exhibited, of:

•    Colleague D

•    Colleague E

•    Colleague H

10.    The Panel heard oral evidence from each of the above witnesses.

11.    The Panel also received a statement from the Registrant dated 21 January 2026 and heard his oral evidence.

The evidence

Colleague D

12.     Colleague D gave evidence in relation to Particulars 1 and 2. She adopted her witness statement dated 16 September 2024 as her evidence-in-chief and answered questions from Mr Higgs, on behalf of the Registrant, and questions from the Panel. In summary, her evidence was to the following effect.

13.    She first registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer in 2018, following which she was employed in that capacity by the Trust at the Hospital. The Registrant was one of her mentors when she first started training.

Particular 1a

14.    During the week of her theatre training, the Registrant asked her a number of personal questions, such as “Do you have a boyfriend? …. Do you have a family….What kind of boys do you like?.... What kind of relationship do you prefer - do you like an open one?”

Particular 1b

15.    When Colleague D confirmed in response to a question from the Registrant that she had a Facebook account, the Registrant looked up her Facebook account on his phone in her presence and looked through her profile photographs, making comments to her about her appearance and body, such as that she “looked hot and had a nice arse”.

Particular 1c

16.    On another occasion at work, the Registrant, having found out that Colleague D was living in Hospital accommodation, asked her which room she was in. He told her that he could pop over during a night shift and give her a surprise. She declined to give him this information. She heard from colleagues that the Registrant had been asking them the whereabouts of her room, and they asked whether she was in a relationship with the Registrant. This made Person D feel very uncomfortable and unsafe.

Particulars 2a, 2b and 2c

17.    On an occasion in November 2018, she was working a shift with the Registrant in the main radiology department. As soon as they were alone in the room, the Registrant grabbed her in a hug and squeezed her bottom. She tried to push him away but he was too strong for her. She told him to leave her alone to which he replied “why … why should I”, or words to that effect and “I felt like touching you so I did”. He also said “If you tell anyone, no one will believe you because no one knows you … everyone knows me and respects me” or words to that effect.

18.    Colleague D said that she felt helpless and as though she was in danger, because she did not know what else he might do. She did not speak to her manager about what had happened. She explained that she was new to the Department, she was new to the country and the culture. She did not have any friends in whom she could confide. Also, English was not her first language and she did not find it easy to communicate outside the context of work. She believed the Registrant when he told her that no one would believe her and she felt that there was a power in-balance in his favour. Rather than report the incident, she avoided working alone with the Registrant and tried to avoid speaking to him.

19.    In late 2021, she heard that one of her female colleagues had allegedly been sexually assaulted by the Registrant. She then realised that she was not the only one who had been at the receiving end of his advances and felt an obligation to “step forward” and disclose her own experiences. She then made a statement for the purpose of the Trust’s internal investigation into the Registrant’s conduct. She said that she had not been put under any pressure to do so.

Colleague E

20.    Colleague E gave evidence in relation to Particulars 3, 4 and 5. She adopted her witness statement dated 13 November 2024 as her evidence-in-chief and answered questions from Mr Higgs, on behalf of the Registrant, and questions from the Panel. In summary, her evidence was to the following effect.

21.    She first registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer in March 2020 and at the material time was employed as a Band 5 Radiographer by the Trust at the Hospital. Prior to the Registrant’s suspension, she worked with him on a weekly basis. As a Band 6 Radiographer, he was senior to her and she approached him for advice and support. She found him unprofessional in that he seemed more interested in her personal life, which made her feel uncomfortable. 

Particular 3

22.    On a night shift in January 2021, Colleague E had some music playing in the background on her computer, and she was sat bopping along to it. The Registrant, who was sitting at a workstation next to her, stared at her in a way which she described as very intense, creepy and perverted manner. He told her that she seemed like a good dancer and asked if she would dance for him. He looked her up and down, as if he was mentally undressing her. This made her feel very uncomfortable. She told him that she did not dance and turned her back on him.

Particular 4

23.    On another occasion, Colleague E was working with the Registrant during normal hours. She went to lunch early and returned to the Department where she was alone with the Registrant. The Registrant asked her whether she wanted to get a snack from the breakout room. She made a reply about not wanting to become fat. The Registrant told her to turn around to show him and he positioned himself as if trying to look at her bottom in a ‘quite suggestive way’. She refused and tried to make a joke of it. He then stared at her again and told her that she was a bad girl trying to entice him. She told him that he was being inappropriate but he just laughed.

Particular 5

24.    On another occasion, Colleague E was working with Colleague C on one of two desktops in the A&E Department. The Registrant was sitting at the other desktop. There was only one chair per desktop, so Colleague C was standing. The Registrant asked if Colleague E or Colleague C wanted to sit on his lap and made a patting gesture on his thigh by way of invitation. Colleague E deflected his comment by telling him that he was too old and that his bones might break, to which the Registrant just laughed. Colleague E stated that the Registrant’s behaviour made her feel very uncomfortable.

25.    Colleague E said that she did not report any of these incidents because she was relatively new to the Department. She did not find her manager approachable and did not want to cause trouble. 

26.    She made the decision to report her experiences with the Registrant when she found out that a colleague had reported being sexually harassed by the Registrant. She said, however, that she did not hear about the experiences of her other colleagues until after she had made her statement for the Trust’s internal investigation.

27.    She denied that she had been influenced by the accounts of her colleagues.

Colleague H

28.     Colleague H confirmed the content of her witness statement dated 22 August 2024.

29.    She was employed by the Trust as the Radiology General Manager at Wexham Park Hospital. She first got to know the Registrant when she was asked to carry out an investigation into his alleged misconduct in the workplace.    

30.    She received a number of complaints from colleagues of a similar nature relating to the Registrant’s alleged sexual misconduct in the workplace. She reviewed statements from these colleagues and interviewed them. She gave an account of what she was told by Colleagues D and E respectively and when questioned didn’t believe they were friends, or words to that effect.

31.    Colleague H stated that she had twice interviewed the Registrant and attached her notes of interview. She stated that the Registrant accused the witnesses of lying and laughed off the allegations put to him. He asserted that all the witnesses were in a gang and ganging up against him. He did, however, admit that he had previously had a sexual relationship with a different radiography colleague who lived in hospital accommodation.

The Registrant’s evidence 

32.    The Registrant confirmed that he had been senior to Colleagues D and E and thereby admitted there was a power imbalance. 

33.    He had been employed by the Trust as a Radiographer at the Hospital from 2017 and by the end of 2018 he had been promoted from Band 5 to Band 6. He told the Panel that he was a friendly person and was well liked and respected in the Department and he had always had platonic relationships with his colleagues. He said that he treated all his colleagues as friends. He acknowledged that he was in a senior position in relation to Colleagues D and E.

Particular 1a

34.    The Registrant partially accepted Particular 1a, however he denied his questions crossed professional boundaries. He admitted asking Colleague D a few personal questions, such as whether she had a boyfriend, by way of getting to know her better. He maintained that such questions were part of the normal exchange of information. He denied asking her what kind of boys she liked or what kind of relationship she preferred.

Particular 1b

35.    The Registrant partially accepted Particular 1b. He admitted opening up Colleague D’s Facebook page in her presence and without her consent. However, he maintained that he simply commented that her pictures were nice. He denied making any inappropriate comments or making any personal remarks about her appearance or her body.

Particular 1c

36.    The Registrant adamantly denied Particular 1c. He agreed that the hospital accommodation was a 2-3 minute walk from the Department, He said, however, that it would not have been possible for him to visit Colleague D during a night shift. He denied making any attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of her room. He said that he had never pursued a relationship with a white woman and they were not in his “zone”.

Particular 2a, 2b and 2c

37.    The Registrant denied Particular 2 in its entirety. He mentioned that the room where the incident had allegedly taken place was so cramped that it was difficult to avoid some physical contact with another person in the room. He did not, however, suggest this as an alternative explanation of what had taken place. He basically asserted that Colleague D’s account was untrue.

Particular 3

38.    The Registrant admitted Particular 3. He said that he noticed Colleague E was sat down bopping to the music and asked if she would show him some dance moves. 

Particular 4

39.    The Registrant denied Particular 4. He said the alleged incident did not happen.

Particular 5

40.    The Registrant admitted Particular 5. He said that he had told his colleagues that he had been in the army and had strong thighs and they should sit on his lap. He said that he had no intention that either Colleague E or Colleague C should sit on his lap and his comment was in the nature of banter. The Panel noted that within his evidence he also stated that colleagues often commented on his ‘hard body’. 

Particular 6

41.    The Registrant denied sexual motivation in relation to Particulars 2 and/or 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 as alleged.

The Panel’s decision on facts

42.    The Panel took account of the submissions of Ms Khaile on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Higgs on behalf of the Registrant

43.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

44.    The Panel noted that the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the Panel must be satisfied that any act alleged is more likely than not to have occurred before it can find it proved. The burden of proof is on the HCPC in respect of the factual particulars.

45.    The Panel noted that it should set out the undisputed facts, the facts in dispute and the findings of fact which it made and the reasons why it made those findings. Where the credibility or reliability of witnesses is an issue or there is contradictory evidence, the Panel should set out any factors that it considered in giving appropriate weight to witnesses’ evidence, or which led to the evidence of one witness being preferred over another. In determining sexual motivation, the Panel must decide whether the conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

46.    The Panel noted that the more contemporaneous accounts of what took place are likely to be more reliable. In testing the credibility of the witnesses, the Panel should consider any similarities or differences between what each of the witnesses said to others or during their interviews and what they said in evidence to the Panel. To decide whether their accounts are true or not the Panel must look at all the evidence.

47.     In considering why any allegation was not made earlier the Panel must avoid making assumptions that because it was delayed it must be untrue. It must look at all the circumstances, including the reasons that Colleagues D and E gave for not having complained at the time they say the incidents occurred. Different people react to particular situations in different ways. Some will tell someone about it straight away, whilst others may not be able to do so, whether out of shame, shock, confusion or fear of getting into trouble or not being believed. The Panel considered whether these factors would have affected the decision of either Colleague D or Colleague E’s decision not to complain at the time. The fact that a complaint was not made at the time, does not necessarily mean that it must be untrue, any more than the fact that a complaint is made immediately, means that it must be true. 

48.    The Panel also made allowance for the difficulty for the Registrant in giving evidence as he has the pressure of being the person who is the subject of the Allegation.

49.    By way of general observations, the Panel noted that:

•    At the time of the alleged incidents, Colleagues D and E were relatively new to the Department and subordinate to the Registrant 

•    Colleagues D and E each gave plausible explanations as to why they felt unable to report the alleged incidents at the time that they occurred and were unaware until much later that the Registrant had allegedly behaved in a similar manner to other female colleagues

•    The Trust investigation into the Registrant’s conduct initially arose from the reluctance of a number of colleagues to work on the same shifts as the Registrant, which preceded any individual making a complaint against him

•    Colleagues D and E were only two of a number of female colleagues who had made complaints against the Registrant of sexual misconduct in the workplace

•    The Registrant asserted that he was well liked and respected in the Department and treated all his colleagues as his friends. His only explanation, however, of the misconduct alleged against him was that he was the victim of a conspiracy by female colleagues who had decided to gang up against him. He gave no explanation as to why he had been the victim of such a conspiracy or the motivation behind it.

50.    The Panel made the following findings of fact.

Particular 1a – Proved

51.    The Panel believed the evidence of Colleague D. Her oral evidence was consistent with her statement to the Trust’s internal investigation, her oral evidence given during the investigation and her witness statement in these proceedings. The Panel noted the Registrant’s admission that he was in a senior position to Colleague D and that there was a power imbalance between them. The Panel also noted that he admitted asking her some personal questions, such as whether she had a boyfriend. The Panel did not accept his explanation that he was merely being friendly. The Panel was satisfied that his questions were inappropriate and intrusive and that they made Colleague D feel uncomfortable and that it crossed professional boundaries. Particular 1a is proved

Particular 1b    - Proved

52.    The Registrant admitted opening up Colleague D’s Facebook page in her presence and without her permission and continued to look despite her asking him to stop. The Panel accepted Colleague D’s evidence that he was able to do so by knowing her name as opposed to being given any information by her. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct in so doing so was inappropriate and intrusive. The Panel believed Colleague D’s evidence that the Registrant then made personal comments about her appearance and her body such as that she was ‘hot’ and had ‘a nice arse’. The Panel concluded that this behaviour was inappropriate.

Particular 1c – Proved

53.    The Panel accepted Colleague D’s evidence that the Registrant asked her where in Hospital accommodation she was living and said words to the effect that he would ‘pop over” and “give her a surprise” during a night shift, despite being asked by Colleague D not to do so. The impact of this behaviour left her feeling scared. The Panel did not believe the Registrant’s evidence that it was impossible for him to pay her a visit during a night shift or his assertion that he had no interest in white women; nor did the Panel accept his general assertion that any misconduct alleged against him was attributable to a conspiracy against him. The Panel concluded that this behaviour was inappropriate. 

Particulars 2a, 2b and 2c - Proved

54.    The Panel accepted Colleague D’s evidence that the Registrant had taken the opportunity of being alone with her during a shift to hug her forcibly and squeeze her bottom. The Panel noted that there were some minor differences in her accounts of the incident over the passage of time as to whether the Registrant put one or both hands on her bottom but these did not detract from the cogency of her evidence. The Panel accepted her evidence that the incident lasted up to a minute because the Registrant was too strong for her to escape his embrace. The Panel also accepted her evidence that the Registrant said “I felt like touching you, so I did”, or words to that effect and that he also said “if you tell anyone, no one will believe you because no one knows you, everyone knows me and respects me”, or words to that effect.

55.    The Panel noted that in his evidence the Registrant stated that he was well liked and respected in the Department and the Panel considered that perception of his own status lent credence to the words which he allegedly spoke to Colleague D to dissuade her from reporting the incident. Furthermore the Panel accepted Colleague D’s belief that the threat was genuine and therefore didn’t report it. The Panel gave weight to Colleague D's testimony that she regretted not speaking out before, saying ‘maybe other people may not have been affected, it is a regret I will carry forward’. The Panel noted Colleague D’s evidence that as a consequence of this incident she avoided working with the Registrant again by either swapping shifts or rooms.

56.    The Panel also noted the Registrant’s evidence that the room where the incident allegedly occurred was very cramped and physical contact between two people sharing the space was almost unavoidable. The Panel could see no relevance in the Registrant offering this evidence unless he was seeking to suggest some alternative version of events. However, the main thrust of his case was that the incident never occurred and that it was a fabrication on the part of Colleague D. The Panel preferred the evidence of Colleague D and found Particulars 2a, 2b and 2c proved.

Particular 3 - Proved

57.    The Panel believed the evidence of Colleague E. Her oral evidence was consistent with her statement to the Trust’s internal investigation, her oral evidence given during the investigation and her witness statement in these proceedings. The Panel noted the Registrant’s admission that he was in a senior position to Colleague E and that there was a power imbalance between them. 

58.    The Registrant admitted Particular 3 at the outset. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague E and found Particular 3 proved on the basis of her evidence and the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 4 – Proved

59.    The Panel accepted Colleague E’s evidence that, when alone with the Registrant, he stared at her, looked her up and down, as if mentally undressing her, and told her to turn round while trying to look at her bottom. The Panel also found that the Registrant said that she was a “bad girl trying to entice” him or words to that effect. The Panel noted that Colleague E had been consistent in her account of this incident. In Colleague E’s oral evidence she was able to clearly describe the Registrant leaning around her to look at her bottom and she found this together with the words used ‘quite suggestive’. The Panel did not believe the suggestion by the Registrant that the incident had been fabricated.

Particular 5 - Proved

60.    The Registrant admitted Particular 5 at the outset. The Panel accepted the evidence of Colleague E and found Particular 5 proved on the basis of her evidence and the Registrant’s admission.

Particular 6

61.    The Panel noted an administrative error in the wording of Particular 6 in that it included Particular 6 itself as sexually motivated when in fact it should have been limited to Particular 2 and/or 4 and/or 5.

62.    Having found the facts proved in relation to Particulars 2, 4 and 5, the Panel went on to consider whether the HCPC had proved that the Registrant’s conduct was sexually motivated in respect of each of them.

63.     With regard to Particular 2, the Panel found that in hugging Colleague D and squeezing her bottom, the Registrant’s conduct was for his own sexual gratification and therefore sexually motivated. The Panel’s conclusion was supported by the Registrant saying at the time ‘I felt like touching you, so I did”. Also, his implied threat to Colleague D that no one would believe her if she told them was an implied acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

64.    In the absence of any innocent explanation for his conduct towards Colleague E in respect of Particular 4, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct towards her was for his own sexual gratification and therefore sexually motivated. The Panel noted the combination of the words ‘bad girl’ and ‘entice’ alongside looking at Colleague E’s bottom in what was described as being ‘quite suggestive’ as evidence of sexual  motivation.

65.    With regard to Particular 5, the Panel did not accept the Registrant’s explanation that his invitation to Colleagues E and/or Colleague C to sit on his lap was mere office banter. The Panel noted that the Registrant in his oral evidence mentioned to his colleagues the fact that he had a ‘hard body’ and ‘strong thighs’. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s invitation to his colleagues to sit on his lap was said for his own sexual gratification and was therefore sexually motivated.

66.    The Panel noted the Registrant’s statement for this hearing dated 21 January 2026 and his oral evidence in which he consistently stated that his ‘relationship with previous Colleagues had always been platonic’. However, the Panel noted contradictory evidence within the investigation minutes and during this hearing that he had in fact had a sexual relationship with a previous Colleague. The Panel took the view that this further undermined the credibility of the Registrant’s evidence. 

Decision on misconduct 

67.    The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved, or any of them, amounted to misconduct, as alleged in Particular 7 of the Allegation.

68.    The Panel carefully considered the submissions of Ms Khaile on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Higgs on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

69.    The Panel was mindful that this was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.

70.    The Panel took into account that misconduct was defined in Roylance v General Medical Council (no 2) [2001] 1 AC 311 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”.

In the case of Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin), the court stated that:

“The adjective ‘serious’ must be given its proper weight, and in other contexts there has been reference to conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

71.    The Registrant made unwanted sexual advances to two female colleagues, which, in relation to Particular 2a, amounted to a sexual assault. He was in a position of power over these colleagues which he exploited for his own sexual gratification in breach of professional boundaries.

72.    The Registrant’s conduct made his colleagues feel intimidated, insecure and at risk of further unwanted advances. It was likely to have had a detrimental impact on their ability to perform their duties and thereby potentially undermined their ability to provide care for patients and service users. In addition, there was evidence that a number of colleagues refused to work shifts with the Registrant, thereby potentially reducing the operational capacity of the Department. 

73.    The Panel considered that the Registrant was in breach of the following standards of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016), namely:

•    Standard 2.8: “You must treat work your colleagues in a professional manner showing them respect and consideration” 

•    Standard 6.1: “You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible”
•     Standard 6.2: “You must not do anything …..which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk”

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

74.    The Registrant’s conduct was also in breach of the following Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers (2013), namely:

•    Standard 3: be able to maintain fitness to practise

•    Standard 3.1: understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct 

•    Standard 9:  be able to work appropriately with others 

•    Standard 9.1:  be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others 

•    Standard 9.2: understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent professional and collaboratively as a member of a team 

75.    In summary, the Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 1-6, individually and collectively, fell far short of the standards to be expected of him in the circumstances and thereby constituted serious misconduct.

Decision on impairment
 
76.    The Panel had regard to the submissions of Ms Khaile and Mr Higgs respectively.

77.    On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Higgs submitted that it was a ‘sad day’ when the Registrant’s friendliness towards colleagues was misinterpreted. He made it clear that the Registrant maintained that there had been no misconduct on his part, stating there was no sexual predation and he did not seek sexual gratification.

78.    The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

79.    In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour on the part of registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

80.    With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel considered that the proven facts demonstrated a deep-seated exploitative attitude towards women on the part of the Registrant. He exhibited a pattern of predatory and opportunist behaviour towards young and vulnerable female colleagues whereby he exploited his seniority and position of power to pursue them for his own sexual gratification. He persisted in his sexual advances, despite being made aware that they were unwelcome. He could not see that his behaviour was wrong. He offered no apology and showed no remorse. On the contrary, he adamantly denied any misconduct and accused the Complainants of conspiring against him, misinterpreting his actions and fabricating their evidence. He showed no insight into nor even acknowledgment of the negative impact his behaviour had on his colleagues despite having heard their live evidence during this hearing.

81.    In the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation, the Panel concluded that there was a significant likelihood of repetition of the Registrant’s misconduct with the consequent risk of significant harm to the public, including service users and colleagues. 

82.    Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired having regard to the “personal” component.

83.    With regard to the “public” component, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s unrestricted practice would constitute a risk to the public, including female colleagues, and indirect harm to the patients and service users whose care was likely to be adversely affected by the Registrant’s misconduct towards his colleagues.

84.    The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct breached fundamental tenets of the profession and that he had brought the profession into disrepute. 

85.    The Panel determined that a finding of current impairment on public interest grounds was required to uphold proper standards of professional conduct and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator, which would be undermined if there were no such finding.

86.    Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also impaired on public interest grounds.

Decision on sanction

87.    The Registrant gave further evidence to the following effect:

•    he reasserted that that his conduct towards his colleagues had not been sexually motivated

•    he regretted that his friendliness towards his colleagues had been misinterpreted

•    he acknowledged that he had not undertaken any Continuing Professional Development (CPD) courses relating to professional boundaries or communicating with colleagues, despite having been prompted to do so by Mr Higgs since the commencement of these proceedings some three and a half years ago.

88.    The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Khaile on behalf of the HCPC and Mr Higgs on behalf of the Registrant.

89.    The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

90.    The Panel was unable to discern any mitigating factors.

91.    By way of aggravating factors:

•    The Panel found that the Registrant had abused his senior professional position in relation to junior female colleagues to transgress professional boundaries in pursuit of his own sexual gratification

•    He had demonstrated a pattern of predatory sexual behaviour towards female colleagues, exploiting their youth, inexperience and vulnerability
•    His conduct caused significant psychological harm to those colleagues by causing them to feel uncomfortable, unsafe and insecure in the workplace

•    His conduct towards his colleagues had the potential indirectly to put patients and service users at risk of harm by distracting his colleagues from their primary focus on and responsibility towards the welfare of their patients and service users 

•    The Registrant had demonstrated no remorse or insight. On the contrary, he continued to maintain his innocence and to assert that his natural friendliness had been misinterpreted as having been sexually motivated

•    He had taken no remedial steps, such as undertaking courses in maintaining professional boundaries or communications with colleagues, despite the passage of time since the commencement of these proceedings and the promptings of his representative, Mr Higgs, to undertake such courses

•    Having regard to all the above factors, there was a significant risk that his misconduct would be repeated, resulting in harm to the public and, in particular, female colleagues.

92.    The case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.

93.    A Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.

94.     A Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate because the Panel could not formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s sexual misconduct and his exploitative and predatory attitude towards young and vulnerable female colleagues and the significant risk of repetition.

95.    The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order but, in light of its conclusion as to the attitudinal nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, his lack of any remorse or insight and the consequent risk of repetition, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate.

96.    The Sanctions Policy states that a striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious persistent and deliberate acts including:

•    Dishonesty

•    Abuse of professional position, including vulnerability

•    Sexual misconduct

and “is likely to be appropriate 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. In particular where the registrant:

•    Lacks insight

•    Continues to repeat the misconduct 

•    Is unwilling to resolve matters”.

97.    In the Panel’s judgement all the indicative criteria for a Striking Off Order are present in this case. The public is entitled to expect members of the profession to behave with decency, honesty and integrity, all of which qualities were conspicuously lacking in the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleagues D and E. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be incompatible with his remaining on the Register.

98.    Whilst the Panel took full account of the financial and other hardship to the Registrant, the need to protect the public and the wider public interest must take priority over the Registrant’s interests. The Panel concluded that the appropriate sanction is a Striking Off Order. 

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Christopher Gyiripah from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

The Registrant has appealed agaisnt the decision to strike him off the Register.

The Interim Suspension Order imposed by the panel to cover the appeal period will remain in place until the appeal concludes.

Interim Order

1.    Ms Khaile on behalf of the HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined. 

2.    On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Higgs opposed the imposition of an Interim Suspension Order.

3.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

4.    Given the Panel’s findings that the Registrant’s actions are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent with that need for public protection and the wider public interest not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, came to the conclusion that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.

5.    The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary for public protection and otherwise in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.

6.    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. This Interim Suspension is for a period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Christopher Gyiripah