​​Gerald M Browne​

Preliminary Matters

Service and Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant

1. The Panel has been provided with a bundle of papers relating to service. Within that bundle was evidence that on 15 December 2025, the Registrant had been served with Notice of today’s hearing. It was submitted by the HCPC that this service had been effected in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) (Rules) 2003.

2. Also within that service bundle, was an email from the Registrant dated 17 December 2025, in which he confirmed that he would “not be attending your ‘hearing’ as your delays have [redacted] killed any desire to work as a Registered Physiotherapist again.”

3. The day before the hearing, the Registrant had emailed the Hearings Officer confirming that he would not be attending. In that email he referenced the fact that he has said he would not be attending in previous correspondence. In that email he did not provide any reason for his non-attendance other than his lack of desire to engage in the hearing process. Further, he did not seek an adjournment of the hearing nor provide any indication that he might attend in the future if there were such an adjournment.

4. It was submitted by the HCPC that the Registrant had intentionally absented himself from the proceedings and voluntarily waived his right of attend. It was stated by the HCPC that any potential unfairness to the Registrant in proceeding with today’s hearing was outweighed by meeting the public’s interest in having this matter dealt with without further delay.

5. The HCPC requested that the Panel make a finding that there had been good service and that it exercise its discretion to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

6. The Panel sought and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. It took into account the guidance set out in the HCPTS’s Practice Notes entitled Postponements and Adjournments of proceedings and Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant.

7. The Panel noted that more than 28 days’ notice of hearing had been given and that the Notice of hearing letter contained all the relevant and correct information relating to the hearing in terms of date, time and mode of hearing. The Panel noted that there had been recent engagement by the Registrant which clearly indicated that he was aware of today’s hearing. The Panel therefore found that there had been good service.

8. The Panel noted that within the case bundle there were various emails from the Registrant which indicated his lack of satisfaction at the delay in this matter coming to a conclusion. Those communications restated the Registrant’s intention not to engage in the HCPC hearing and his desire for the matter to be dealt with expeditiously.

9. The Panel accepted the position that the Registrant had made an informed decision not to attend today’s hearing and this being the case, little or no purpose would be served by adjourning to another date. Further, there was public interest in this matter proceeding without any further delay. In this regard the Panel noted the Registrant’s complaints at the delay and his repeated requests for this matter to be concluded. The Panel therefore came to the conclusion that it would also be in the Registrant’s best interests that this matter proceed today. On this basis, the Panel concluded that it would proceed today in the Registrant’s absence.

Hearing in part in private

10. The presumption is that hearing should be held in public. The matters concerning the Registrant and issues relating to his private life form the basis of the conviction. Therefore, on the Registrant’s behalf the HCPC made an application under Rule 10(1)(a) of The Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 and the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”, for the Panel to go into private to hear those parts of the evidence which related to such personal matters.

11. The Panel again sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the terms of the HCPTS Practice Note. The Panel had been given the opportunity in advance of the hearing to read and consider the documentation relied upon by the HCPC. From that documentation it was clear that there were issues of a personal nature which should be accorded privilege and for those matters to be considered in open session would be a breach of the Registrant’s, and his family’s, right to a private life. This being the case, the Panel agreed to the application for parts of the hearing to be conducted in private.

Background

12. The Registrant is an HCPC registered Physiotherapist and was previously employed by Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust. He also ran a private practice.

13. On 28 February 2023, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC and confirmed he had been charged by the Police in relation to an incident with his then wife.

14. At a trial date on 7 November 2023, the Registrant pleaded guilty to the following charge:

Between 01 August 2022 and 31 August 2022 both dates inclusive at <REDACTED> you GERALD BROWNE did assault your partner or ex-partner <REDACTED>, care of the police Service of Scotland, in that you did throw keys at <REDACTED> head, kick <REDACTED> to the body and repeatedly punch <REDACTED> to the head and it will be proved in terms of section 1 of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 that the aforesaid offence was aggravated by involving abuse of your partner or ex partner.

15. The Registrant was sentenced to a financial penalty of £420.00 and a Non-Harassment Order was imposed for a period of 5 years.

HCPC submissions on Facts and Statutory Ground

16. At this stage, the HCPC relied solely upon the documentary evidence contained within the HCPC bundle. The fact of Particular 1 is supported by that documentation and is also the basis of the statutory ground of Conviction.

17. In this regard the Panel was directed by the HCPC to Rule 10(1)(d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which states:
“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”.

18. The Panel had been provided with a Full Extract Conviction Report from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The HCPC submitted that the content of that document is consistent with the facts as alleged by Particular 1.

19. The Panel was directed to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations”. The Panel was reminded that Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 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”.

20. It was the HCPC’s position that the Registrant having been convicted of an offence by a Court of the United Kingdom, was conclusive of the Allegation which supported the Panel finding the statutory ground of conviction.

21. The HCPC stated that the evidence of a Conviction was in breach of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct and Performance [2016 edition] standard 9.1, which states:
You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession

22. The HCPC also submitted that the HCPC’s Proficiency Standards for Physiotherapists had also been breached and directed the Panel to standards 2.1 and 2.4.which state:
2.1 Maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct
2.4 Understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professional Council, including but not limited to, the standards of conduct, performance and ethics

Decision on Facts and Grounds

23. The Panel considered carefully the documentation placed before it. It took into account the representations made by the HCPC and the further advice provided by the Legal Assessor.

24. The Panel accepted that the evidence of a Conviction did support the terms of Particular 1 of the Allegation and so made a finding to this effect.

25. The Panel also accepted that the fact of the conviction also fulfilled the terms of the statutory ground of Conviction as set out in the Order.

26. The Panel as directed took into account the relevant HCPTS guidance. The Panel noted that these events in 2023 predate the current 2024 edition of the Standard of Conduct Performance and Ethics and so, as correctly indicated by the HCPC it referenced the 2016 edition.

27. The Panel agreed that there had been a breach of those provisions and that the statutory ground of conviction was the basis for its finding under Article 22 of the Order.

Fitness to Practise: Impairment

HCPC submissions

28. Whether the proven facts amount to impairment of fitness to practise is a matter of judgement for the Panel and the HCPC did not present any separate evidence on this issue.

29. The HCPC reminded that Panel that when considering current impairment, the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise: Impairment” would be of assistance. This guidance highlighted that the HCPC’s overarching objective of protecting the public is achieved by the following, all of which are relevant to impairment:
• Protecting service users;
• Declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour; and
• Maintain public confidence in the profession concerned.

30. When considering those the Panel should take into account the two components of its decision which were the personal and public. The personal component includes consideration of the current competence, behaviour, and insight of the Registrant. The key questions for the Panel are:
• Whether the Registrant’s actions are capable of remediation;
• Whether the Registrant has taken any remedial action; and
• Whether the Registrant’s actions are likely to be repeated.

31. An important factor in relation to considering a future repetition of the conduct complained of will be the Registrant’s insight. The Registrant’s insight into his previous behaviour can be assessed by reference to the correspondence passing between him and the HCPC in the last three years.

32. Paragraph 28 of the Practice Note on Fitness to practise: Impairment states that, “there are some cases, including those involving serious attitudinal or behavioural issues, which may be more difficult to remediate or where public confidence in the profession requires a finding of impairment to be made.”

33. In assessing the public component, the Panel was invited to consider the need to protect service users, to requirement to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

34. The HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations” also sets out the following:

“The Panel’s task is to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned, and, if so, whether any sanction needs to be imposed…In considering the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence, Panels need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the registrant’s actions bring the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in that profession. In doing so, Panels are entitled to adopt a 'retrospective' approach and consider the conviction as if the registrant was applying for registration with the HCPC.”

35. The HCPC stressed that the Registrant had not provided any evidence of remorse, apology, reflection or remediation. There is limited supporting information about his current circumstances, and he has not provided any references or testimonials. It is submitted that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate sufficient remediation. There is no evidence of any remedial action taken since the offending to demonstrate that the risk of repetition has been reduced.

36. Despite the Registrant’s plea of guilty, it was submitted that there was and is a lack of insight into the Allegation. As shown through his various emails, the Registrant has continued to distance himself from his plea of guilty: he has consistently stated he struck his wife in self-defence and placed the blame for his actions on her. The HCPC considers that the Registrant has minimised the impact on his wife, where he describes it as giving her a ‘hot ear', which is inconsistent with the information set out in the Full Extract Conviction Report. The Registrant also fails to acknowledge the impact of assaulting his wife who at the time had serious medical conditions. There has been no acknowledgement that his behaviour fell below professional standards. It was therefore submitted that there is a lack of well-developed and genuine insight.

37. The HCPC highlighted that there had been an early and consistent denial of wrongdoing which the Registrant had maintained to date notwithstanding the terms of Full Extract Conviction Report. It was also to be noted that the Registrant had delayed his self-referral, which brought into question his understanding of his professional duties and responsibilities.

38. In respect of the public component, the HCPC maintained that the allegations are serious, where it involves violence in a domestic context against a vulnerable partner, who suffered from serious medical conditions. The seriousness of the allegation is marked by the state’s intervention and the imposition of a Non-Harassment Order for a period of five years in order to protect the victim.

39. The HCPC submitted that a finding of impairment was appropriate in order to properly uphold and declare standards and maintain confidence in the profession. If robust regulatory action were not taken to appropriately mark the seriousness of such behaviour, public confidence in the profession would likely to be eroded. A finding of impairment would send a message to the public and the profession that such conduct is not to be tolerated.

40. The HCPC therefore submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and public components.
Decision on Impairment

41. The Panel noted the HCPC’s submissions. The Panel appreciated that it was looking at current impairment, in other words is the Registrant able to return to practise without a restriction on his registration today, or is there a basis, either personal or in the public interest, to support the view that he is not capable of practising safely. The Panel sought and noted the Legal Assessor’s advice that it should take into account at this stage all aspects of the case as disclosed by the documentation and apply its judgment in relation to the two elements of its decision, the personal and the private components.

42. The Panel started its consideration by reviewing the matter from the personal perspective. It considered whether the Registrant’s actions were capable of remediation, had been remediated or whether, going forward, there was anything to indicate that the Registrant continued to pose a risk to the public. The Panel concluded, that notwithstanding the nature of the conviction, that this was a situation that could be remediated and so it went on to identify whether there had been evidence of remediation.

43. In undertaking this task, the Panel noted that there was nothing from the Registrant that would assist it in assessing his fitness to return to safe practice. In relation to current physical and mental ability to return to practise the Panel had not been provided with any medical or occupational health information. There were no statements or references from fellow professionals that attest to his former professional skills nor his current situation. There is nothing from Social Services to support the Registrant’s position that his former wife has continued to present as a risk and support the situation that she is still being monitored. There is nothing from him to support his assertion that Police Scotland were still involved with his former wife’s conduct. There was nothing to show that the Registrant had maintained his professional skill and knowledge such that he could return to practise. As identified by the HCPC, there was nothing that indicated that the Registrant had demonstrated any remorse; expressed any apology; nor regretted his previous conduct.

44. The Panel noted that in terms of reflection the Registrant had not identified any alternatives to his chosen course of action. He had not chosen to push his wife away but had, according to his version of events given her a ‘hot ear’ and, according to the Full Extract Conviction Report, kicked and punched her repeatedly. The Registrant had not reflected and identified that he could have walked away; left the room; left the house; alerted the Police or sought another form of support. There had been alternatives to his chosen style of self-defence and at this distance from events he has still not accepted any level of wrongdoing.

45. There is therefore nothing before the Panel to support the position that the Registrant has remediated. Further, the level of his apparent lack of insight and reflection into his behaviour has led the Panel to the conclusion that there remains a possibility that should the Registrant again be placed in a stressful situation may act the same way again. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant is impaired on the personal component.

46. Turning to the public component, the Panel noted that this was a Conviction for assault which was in the public domain and given the nature of the assault would rightly be a matter of concern to the public. It was possible, that the public, in full receipt of all the surrounding circumstances, would have some sympathy for the Registrant being placed within such a very stressful domestic situation. However, the public sympathy would be challenged by the knowledge that the Registrant had not shown any understanding of his actions and the impact it had, not only on the victim, but also his profession and his regulator. The public would be concerned if the Registrant were allowed to continue to practise without some note of public mark of displeasure as to his conduct. The Panel has therefore also found that on the public component the Registrant is not fit to practise.

HCPC submissions on Sanction

47. The Panel having made a decision that there is current impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise the Panel should now move to consider what is the proportionate and appropriate sanction to impose and in so doing this the Panel will have regard to the HCPTS “Sanctions Policy” current at this time.

48. The Panel should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected, considering the least restrictive sanction available first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public.

49. The full range of sanctions are available to the Panel today and those are:
• Mediation;
• No further action;
• Caution Order;
• Conditions of Practice Order;
• Suspension Order;
• Striking-off Order.

50. Whilst the HCPC does not advocate for any particular level of sanction it is appropriate for it to draw to the Panel’s attention the factors within the Sanction Policy that are relevant in this case.

51. In this regard the HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that violence is considered within the Sanctions Policy to be a ‘serious case’. The HCPC directed the Panel to paragraph 93 of the guidance entitled ‘Violence’ which states:

Registrants have a duty to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession (see standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics). Where a registrant has exhibited violent behaviour, this is highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in their profession and pose a risk to the public. In these cases, a more serious sanction may be warranted.

52. In relation to the adoption of a Caution Order the Panel was directed to the terms of paragraph 83 which states:

Likewise, if a registrant has a conviction or caution for a less serious offence which nevertheless had an impact on fitness to practise, typically panels should not permit the registrant to resume unrestricted practice.

53. The Panel was reminded that this level of sanction would allow the Registrant to work without restriction and would therefore provide no level of public protection.

54. In terms of a Conditions of Practice Order, the Panel was reminded that this Registrant has shown no insight into his behaviour and has not shown any signs that he genuinely intends to resolve his failings. The Registrant has not provided the Panel with any confidence that he would comply with any conditions placed upon him and in the absence of the factors that make such an order appropriate then conditions would be impractical as well as not proportionate, Further the issue of a conviction involving, this level of sanction does not reflect the level of seriousness of the Registrant’s actions.

55. In relation to whether the imposition of a period of suspension is appropriate the Panel was drawn to the fact that this is appropriate where conditions of practice are impracticable and a striking off order would be too harsh a measure. In relation to suspension the Panel was reminded that this is appropriate where there is the ability and opportunity to resolve failings and a registrant has insight. Neither of those elements have been engaged in this matter.

56. In relation to a striking off order, the Panel as reminded that it may be appropriate in a case which involves violence.

Decision on Sanction

57. The Panel took into account the HCPC’s representations. The Panel again sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which included reminding the Panel that it is today relying upon the terms of the 2019 edition of the Sanctions Policy and not the latest edition which comes into force on the 2 March 2026.

58. The Panel has also noted and taken into account the most recently expressed position of the Registrant which was contained in his email of 26 February 2026. And which included the following [sic]:
I am frustrated by the ridiculous timescale taken ny HCPC is coming to this stage.
I am completely broken. I have list my livelihood, my home, my nice car, my status.
It is virtually impossible to return to practce after this delay. Do HCPC think this is a ‘reasonable’ timescale??
[redacted]
The kids fully aporeciate the domestic nightmare I was enduring.
She was attacking me so regularly, it was becoming’normal’.
On that fateful night in Feb 2023, she was lunging at me again when I struck her in my defence. I have NEVER initiated violence against her, but the courts always seem to take the side of the woman.
I am not, and have NEVER been a threat to anyone.
My ex colleagues have continued to be flabbergasted at the time taken by HCPC to reach this stage.
They continue to look after me by inviting for meals, doing my laundry and generally supporting my [redacted] health etc, as I live in the back if a converted panel van. They know the genuine person I am. They are heartbroken about this whole process.
I await the outcome of your ‘hearing’.
It matters not to me now. The time taken by HCPC has broken me. I very much doubt I will be able to return to the profession I have enjoyed for 35 years.

59. The Panel whilst undertaking its consideration of this matter noted the following inconsistencies in the information before it:
• The Registrant self-referred in February 2023 and referenced being charged by the Police. In correspondence the Registrant has consistently referenced his failure to act appropriately in February 2023 when he had been provoked and attacked by his then wife. The Allegation and the Notice of Conviction, however, relate to incident, or incidents, arising in August 2022.
• The Registrant stated in his referral to the HCPC in February 2023 his intention to take early retirement in November 2023 when his pension provision came into effect. However, the Registrant has stated consistently that he holds others responsible for his inability to work. In particular he holds the HCPC partially responsible for this situation. The Panel has been informed that there is nothing that has restricted the Registrant’s ability to work during this HCPC process.

60. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s guidance that it would be of assistance to it to identify mitigating and aggravating factors. In relation to mitigating factors the Panel identified that it could have given examples of those had the Registrant provided information in support. Most of those have been identified above under the Panel’s reasons for finding current impairment but the ones most relevant to this stage would have been for instance:
• Evidence relating to his current health.
• The reasons why he had struggled with the court process for eight months in relation to his ability to enter a guilty plea at an earlier stage.
• Evidence of his being a victim of persistent abuse.
• References that showed that he had acted out of character.
The lack of any of this evidence cannot therefore be taken into account as mitigating features.

61. In relation to aggravating factors, the Panel noted:
• He has been absent from clinical practise for an extended period of time.
• The engagement with the Regulator was part of his duty however proper engagement with the stages of the process, including attending the hearing would have had a positive impact on the potential outcome.
• There is a lack of insight, absence of regret, remorse or apology and no evidence of remediation or any indication of an intention to undertake remediation.

62. The Panel concluded that this was too serious a matter to be considered as appropriate for the step of taking no further action.

63. The Panel discounted the imposition of a Caution Order as this would provide no level of public protection and not reflect the wider public concerns about this form of behaviour. This would not address the lack of insight or the potential risk of repetition.

64. The Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order was the appropriate or practical level of sanction given the nature of the conviction. Further, given that there are obvious attitudinal issues this level of sanction inappropriate as well as unworkable.

65. In relation to the imposition of a period of suspension, the Panel would have been able to employ this level of sanction had the Registrant provided the appreciate supporting evidence for such a measure to work. In this regard the Panel noted the terms of paragraph 121 which states:

A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:
• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;
• 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.
The Panel considers that all four factors have not been engaged in this matter and so discounted the imposition of a period of suspension as appropriate.

66. The Panel moved on to consider whether the imposition of a striking off order was appropriate and proportionate in this case and came to the conclusion that it was. The information from and the engagement by the Registrant was such that to make a different conclusion impossible.

67. The Panel noted that this will have a punitive professional, personal and financial impact on the Registrant, however as stated previously, it is unclear to this Panel how his professional, personal and financial situation arose directly and exclusively from these proceedings. Imposing this sanction will ensure continued public protection and be in the wider public interest. It will uphold the public’s confidence in the regulatory process and maintain the reputation of the professions and its regulator.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Gerald Browne the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Service

68. The Panel noted the Notice of Hearing letter, dated 15 December 2025, in which the Registrant had been put on notice that there may be an application by the HCPC for an interim order in the event a Conditions of Practice, Suspension, or Striking-off order were imposed.

Application

69. The HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of eighteen months. This application was made to ensure that the Registrant would be prohibited from practising during the twenty-eight-day appeal period, and should there be an appeal, the order would be sufficiently long to cover the time which that appeal is determined.

70. In the HCPC’s view, an order is necessary in this instance, where there have been findings of serious conduct involving a conviction for violent behaviour, such that a Striking-off Order was considered by the Panel as the proportionate and appropriate sanction. One of the reasons why the Panel concluded this was the correct level of sanction, related to the risk of repetition which it considered to be high due to the Registrant’s lack of insight. In the HCPC’s view that would support the making of an interim order in order to provide public protection. It was also required in the wider public interest.

Decision

71. The Panel sought and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that under Article 31(1)(c) the Panel has a discretionary power to impose an interim conditions of practice order or interim suspension order where there has been a determination under Article 29(5)(a), the imposition of a striking off order.

72. The Panel noted that an interim order can be imposed on one of three grounds, public protection, the Registrant’s interest and the wider public interest. The application is on the basis of public protection and the public interest.

73. Within the guidance in the HCPTS Sanctions Policy a situation that would support the imposition of an interim order included that where ‘the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.’ In the Panel’s view, this is the situation in this case, where the basis for the Panel decision to impose a Striking-off order was that the public would be rightly concerned if the Registrant were allowed to continue in practice after his conviction.

74. The Panel had concluded that in this case, there was a high risk of repetition of the conduct in the absence of any evidence of steps taken to remediate it. The Panel therefore considered that an interim order was necessary in such a situation.

75. The Panel considered that the imposition of an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate nor proportionate for all the reasons set out in the Panel’s final determination.

76. The Panel has therefore concluded that it would grant the HCPC’s application for an Interim Suspension Order. The Panel also concluded that the period of that notice should be the maximum that can be imposed, as there is no certainty as to how long any appeal process will take. The Panel therefore imposed an Interim Suspension Order for a period of eighteen months.

77. The Panel acknowledged that there would be financial and professional impact from the Panel’s decision however, the need for public protection and the wider public interest outweighed those professional interests of the Registrant.

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 ​​Gerald M Browne​