Maria Jarvis

Preliminary Matters
 
Service of Notice

1.               The notice of this hearing was sent to the Registrant at her registered email address as it appeared in the register on 18 November 2025. The notice contained the date and time of today’s hearing, confirming that it was to be held by video conference. A delivery confirmation dated 18 November 2025 has also been provided to the Panel. 

2.               The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and is satisfied that notice of today’s hearing has been served in accordance with Rule 6(1) of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules 2003 (the “Rules”) including the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

3.               The Panel then went on to consider whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules. In doing so, it considered the submissions of Ms Molyneux on behalf of the HCPC. 

4.               Ms Molyneux submitted that the HCPC has taken all reasonable steps to serve the notice on the Registrant. She further submitted that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and that the Registrant has emailed the HCPC on 3 February 2026 stating: “Good evening. I won’t be attending”. Ms Molyneux therefore submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing and that she had not asked for an adjournment. The Registrant has not provided any reason for her absence. 

5.               She reminded the Panel that there was a public interest in this matter being dealt with expeditiously and that any adjournment would not secure the Registrant’s attendance on any future date.

6.               The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised that, if the Panel is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to notify the Registrant of the hearing, then the Panel had the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. He advised that the discretion was to be exercised with the utmost care and caution as set out in the case of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5.

7.               The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and advised that the Adeogba case reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and of the public interest. In that regard, the case of Adeogba was clear that: “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, ... , it is only right that it should proceed….there is a burden on...all professionals subject to a regulatory regime, to engage with the regulator, both in relation to the investigation and ultimate resolution of allegations made against them. That is part of the responsibility to which they sign up when being admitted to the profession.”

8.               The Panel was mindful to ensure that fairness and justice were maintained when deciding whether or not to proceed in a Registrant’s absence.

9.               In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel took into consideration the HCPC’s practice note entitled ‘Proceeding in the Absence of a Registrant’. The Panel weighed its responsibility for public protection and the expeditious disposal of the case with the Registrant’s right to a fair hearing. 

10.           In reaching its decision the Panel took into account the following:

·          the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been sent Notice of this hearing together with all supporting documentation and that she had unequivocally stated that she would not be attending the hearing. It concluded that she had voluntarily absented herself from this hearing;

·          the Registrant has not made an application to adjourn today’s hearing and in any event, the Panel was not satisfied that any adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance; and

·          there is a public interest that this matter proceeds expeditiously.

11.           The Panel was satisfied that all reasonable efforts had been made by the HCPC to notify the Registrant of the hearing. The Panel also concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing. Having weighed the public interest for expedition in cases against the Registrant’s own interests, the Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence and that there was no unfairness or injustice in doing so. 

Application to amend the charge
12.           Ms Molyneux, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application to amend the Allegation as set out above. She submitted that the proposed minor amendments did not change the substance of the allegation the Registrant faced, but merely ensured that the allegation more accurately reflected the fact of the convictions, avoided repetition of the wording of the allegation, as well as particularising the nature of the alleged dishonesty. 

13.           The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and carefully considered the HCPC application to amend the particulars. The Panel concluded, after reviewing the proposed amendments, that it would agree to the particulars being amended for the reasons sought because the proposed amendments are minor and do not widen the scope or nature of the Allegation. 

14.           In all the circumstances, there was no likelihood of injustice to the Registrant. The Panel therefore agreed to the proposed amendments. 

Background
 
15.           The Registrant is a registered Radiographer with the HCPC.

16.           On 9 September 2022, the Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC stating that she had been convicted under section 13(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, of attempting to sell puppies without a licence between 22 October 2020 and 2 December 2020.

17.           A memorandum from Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court shows that the Registrant pleaded guilty to two offences and was subsequently convicted, on 27 July 2021. The first offence stated: Between 22 October 2020 and 2 December 2020 at Cannock in the county of Staffordshire carried on an activity described in section 13(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 namely did carry on a business of selling puppies without the authority of a licence for that purpose issued under section 13 of the Act.

18.           The second offence stated: Between 22 October 2020 and 2 December 2020 at Cannock in the county of Staffordshire being a trader engaged in a commercial practice, namely did carry on an unlicenced business selling animals as pets, which was unfair, contrary to regulations 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. For both offences, the Registrant was sentenced to a fine of £450, costs of £5,890.31 and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £45. The Registrant’s convictions appear on her Disclosure and Barring Service ('DBS’) certificate.

19.           Despite being convicted on 27 July 2021, the Registrant did not make the HCPC aware of her convictions until she self-referred to the HCPC on 9 September 2022, approximately 13 months after her convictions. The Registrant stated, in correspondence with the HCPC, that she had been approached by a friend to advertise a litter of puppies on their behalf, through the website ‘Pets for Homes’, and that she did so without realising she needed to have a licence. The Registrant also stated in correspondence that she was not aware that she had a criminal conviction as a result of pleading guilty and accepting a fine. and was in “complete shock” when her DBS showed, in January 2022, that she had a conviction. The Registrant stated that she was unaware that she needed to report a conviction to the HCPC but as soon as an Agency Manager advised her she needed to do so, she did so immediately.

Evidence received

20.           The Panel heard live evidence from Mr Alex Uden, Operations Manager at the HCPC. He confirmed the contents of his witness statement dated 18 March 2025. He produced a copy of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics that was in force at the relevant time, together with a copy of the HCPC’s guidance on self-referral that was in force at the time of the Registrant’s convictions.

21.           The Panel also had sight of a number of documents and exhibits which included, but were not limited to:

·       Self-referral email dated 9 September 2022;

·       Copy prosecution case summary;

·       Copy memorandum of conviction;

·       Copy DBS check; and

·       The Registrant’s written representations dated 9 October 2022.

Decision on Facts
 
Particular 1
 
22.           The Panel has been shown the certificate of conviction (albeit not a certified copy) from the Staffordshire Magistrates Court dated 27 July 2021 in relation to the Registrant. It sets out the offences for which the Registrant was convicted and the sentence imposed on her.

23.           The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It took into account Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules which states that “where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction….shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it is based”. It has also taken into account the HCPC’s Practice Note on ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’.

24.           The Registrant does not dispute the fact of this conviction which she subsequently disclosed to the HCPC.

25.           Accordingly, the Panel found the fact of this conviction proved.

26.           The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 1 proved.

Particular 2
 
27.           The Panel has been shown the certificate of conviction (albeit not a certified copy) from the Staffordshire Magistrates Court dated 27 July 2021 in relation to the Registrant. It sets out the offences for which the Registrant was convicted and the sentence imposed on her.

28.           The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and adopted the approach set out in paragraph 23 above.

29.           The Registrant does not dispute the fact of her conviction which she subsequently disclosed to the HCPC.

30.           Accordingly, the Panel found the fact of this conviction proved.

31.           The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 2 proved.

Particular 3
 
32.           Mr Uden stated in his statement and confirmed in his evidence that the HCPC requires a registrant to inform the HCPC “as soon as possible”, if they have had any restriction placed on their practice, or if they have been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about their conduct or competence, or if they have been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence. He stated that the HCPC does not provide a specific timeframe, however “as soon as possible” means the Registrant should make the HCPC aware as soon as is reasonable. This requirement is clarified at section 9.5 of the then prevailing HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) (“SCPE”), which states:

“Important information about your conduct and competence

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;

– another organisation responsible for regulating a health or social-care profession has taken action or made a finding against you; or

– you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about your conduct or competence.”

33.           Mr Uden stated that the Registrant was required to make a self-referral to the HCPC as soon as possible following the convictions of 27 July 2021, in accordance with Standard 9.5 and the HCPC’s published guidance on self-referrals. He confirmed that there was no record of the Registrant making a self-referral between 27 July 2021 and 8 September 2022, to inform the HCPC of her convictions.

34.           The Registrant in an email sent by her to the HCPC on 9 October 2022, did not dispute that she had not informed the HCPC in a timely manner or that she had been convicted of the offences at Particulars 1 and 2, but denied that she had been dishonest as alleged.

35.           In the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was under an obligation to inform the HCPC as soon as possible but that she did not inform the HCPC in a timely manner that she had been convicted of the offences at Particulars 1 and 2. 

36.           The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 3 proved. 

Particular 4
 
37.           Having found the facts of Particular 3 proved, the Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant had been dishonest as alleged.

38.           In considering whether the Registrant acted dishonestly, the Committee has applied the test for dishonesty as set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67:

“When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain subjectively the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.” 

39.           The Committee was also mindful that, following the principle derived from the case of Ahmedsowida v GMC [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), recklessness cannot be equated with dishonesty.

40.           In reaching its decision, the Panel was mindful that the Registrant was an experienced practitioner who should have been aware of her professional obligations to self-refer to the HCPC as set out above.

41.           The Panel had regard to the contents of the Registrant’s email to the HCPC dated 9 October 2022 in which she said:

“…it came as a complete shock to me when it came up in my CRB check in January 2022. I had no idea I would have a conviction as I was never told this from the court. This explains why I never disclosed it initially to the HCPC in July 2021. The court solicitor led me to believe that it was easier to pay the fine associated with the fact that Pets for Home had let everyone advertise on their website without stopping the people who did not have a licence.

The court solicitor told me that I could pay the fine and walk away and as I have never been in trouble before I chose to pay the fine to close the case. I have no previous convictions and I did not believe that this would lead to one. I saw it as an innocent mistake on my behalf and I paid the fine.

I did not see it as a risk as the website freely let me advertise so I did not know I was doing anything dishonest or untrustworthy.

After my manager received my CRB with this conviction on she spoke to me and I explained what happened to her and it was fed back to Alliance Medical I heard no more and was assured as it was not associated with my job it was ok. I had no idea at this stage that I needed to tell the HCPC as I was not given this advice and it was through my own ignorance that I did not self refer as I have no previous convictions so I honestly did not know I had to declare it.

After interviewing with the Clinical Nurse Manager she advised me that I needed to declare this to the HCPC and I did so with immediate effect. I was grateful to her for informing me as I had no idea I needed to do this. I was as honest and trustworthy as I could be with the knowledge and advice I was given and this explains the time delay in telling you for which I apologise for my ignorance.

I was honest in declaring this to the HCPC hence my self referral when the CNM advised me. I followed her advice immediately and I hope this proves that I am honest and trustworthy it was just my ignorance on this matter that led to the delay for which I apologise.”

42.           In considering the Registrant’s state of mind, being the first limb of the Ivey test, the Panel has considered whether, over time, the Registrant was aware that she had been convicted of a criminal offence, whether she was aware that it had to be disclosed to the HCPC, and whether she sought to conceal it from the HCPC.

43.           In considering whether the Registrant was dishonest, the Panel has borne in mind that the Registrant has not been present at this hearing to give evidence to then potentially be cross examined, and her version of events scrutinised. However, it has also taken into account the Registrant’s previous good character in line with the Legal Assessor’s advice.

44.           In reaching its decision, the Panel has borne in mind the following:

·       The Registrant had attended court and entered guilty pleas, having consulted with a solicitor at court, and had subsequently received notice of the financial penalty imposed. However, given the nature of the charges brought, relating as they did to selling a pet without a licence, the Panel considered it credible that an individual of previous good character may not have understood, albeit mistakenly, that she had received a criminal conviction. The Panel had regard to the fact that the prosecution was not brought by the Police, but by a registered charity, Animal Protection Services and that the certificate of conviction is headed “Memorandum of an entry on the Register at Staffordshire Magistrates Court”;

·       After the Registrant was made aware by that she had criminal convictions by her Manager after receipt of the DBS check, (noting that the form explicitly referred to convictions), the Registrant stated, and the Panel accepted it as credible, that having heard nothing more from her employer, Alliance Medical, she was under the mistaken but genuinely held belief that she did not have to refer her convictions to the HCPC given that the matters for which she was convicted were “not associated with my job”; and

·       Once the Registrant was informed in September 2022 that she needed to refer the matter to the HCPC, having started an application for another agency post, she stated that she did so with immediate effect. By doing so, the Panel concluded that this was not demonstrative of a Registrant who sought to dishonestly conceal her convictions.

45.           In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that since the date of her convictions until the date of her eventual self-referral, the Registrant acted under a genuinely held, but wholly mistaken belief that:

·       she either had not been convicted of a criminal offence, and/or

·       that when she realised that she had, she did not initially believe she had to inform the HCPC given what her employer had said in relation to offences relating to behaviour far removed from her professional practice.

46.           The Panel concluded that failing to report her convictions to the HCPC in those circumstances would not be considered dishonest by ordinary members of the public.

47.           The Panel therefore found that the Registrant had not behaved dishonestly as alleged and therefore found the facts of Particular 4 not proved.

Decision on Statutory Ground:

Conviction

48.           The Panel next considered this statutory ground. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

49.           The Panel has had regard to Article 22 of the Health Professions Order which states that:

This article applies where any allegation is made against a registrant to the effect that:

(a)      his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of—

(i)       ….,

(ii)      ….,

(iii)       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,

50.           Because this is a conviction case in part, and the Panel has found the fact of the convictions proved, the Panel found this statutory ground is made out in relation to Particulars 1 and 2.

Decision on Misconduct and Impairment

51.           The Panel then went on to consider whether those matters found proved at Particular 3 amounted to misconduct, and if so, whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct and convictions.

HCPC Submissions

52.           Ms Molyneux submitted that the facts found proved at Particular 3 were sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct. Furthermore, she submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of both the Registrant’s convictions and her misconduct. She conceded that there were no public protection concerns and she invited the Panel to conclude that that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on public interest grounds alone. 

53.           In relation to the Registrant’s convictions, Ms Molyneux submitted that even though the Registrant’s criminal conduct may appear anodyne, the Registrant had nevertheless broken the law and had then failed to notify the HCPC of her convictions for over a year after the date of her convictions. She recognised however that the convictions date back approximately six years and that the Registrant is otherwise of good character and had not reoffended. However she submitted that the Registrant had not provided evidence of having reflected on her offending.

54.           She invited the Panel to conclude that the Registrant had breached standards 9.1 and 9.5 (set out above) of the HCPC “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics” (2016):

Standard 9: Be honest and trustworthy;

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

Standard 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…

55.           Ms Molyneux submitted that there was a lack of evidence before the Panel in relation to the Registrant’s insight or remedial action that she has taken. For these reasons, she submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component of impairment both in relation to her convictions and her misconduct.  

56.           In relation to the public component, Ms Molyneux submitted that the nature of the Registrant’s criminal behaviour and failure to notify the HCPC of her convictions was such that the public interest element of impairment was engaged in that confidence in the profession would be undermined as a result. 

Registrant’s submissions

57.           No specific submissions have been received by or on behalf of the Registrant, save for her email of 9 October 2022 referred to above. 

Panel’s decision on impairment

58.           In reaching its decision, the Panel had regard to all the evidence before it together with the submissions of Ms Molyneux on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It also had regard to the HCPTS’s Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and, in particular, to the personal and public components set out within the note.

59.           In relation to the Registrant’s convictions, the Panel was mindful that its role was not to go behind the conviction nor was it to seek to retry the criminal case. Rather, its task was to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the criminal offence concerned. The Panel considered whether the Registrant’s actions had brought the Radiographer profession into disrepute or had undermined public confidence in that profession. 

60.           The Legal Assessor also advised the Panel that it should bear in mind the principle of public protection in its broadest sense. The Panel was advised that it could take into consideration all the circumstances surrounding the criminal convictions.

61.           The Panel has had regard to the sentence imposed, but has also borne in mind that the sentence imposed is not necessarily a good indicator of the seriousness of the offence when considered in a regulatory context in terms of maintaining public confidence in the profession. This is because the prime consideration of regulatory tribunals is the protection of the public and of the wider public interest.

62.           In relation to impairment arising from the Registrant’s convictions, the Panel bore in mind the following:

·       That the events in question occurred some six years ago and have not been repeated;

·       That the nature of the offences committed were sufficiently remote from her professional practice so as to have minimal impact on the reputation of the profession;

·       That the Registrant’s offending posed no risk of harm to the public; and

·       The underlying conduct giving rise to the convictions was at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. 

63.           Whilst it is incumbent on members of the Radiography profession to comply with the law and not to commit criminal offences, in all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired by reason of her convictions. 

64.           The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s conduct found proved at Particular 3 amounted to misconduct. In considering this matter, the Panel exercised its own judgement. The Panel also took into account the public interest, which includes protection of the public, maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

65.           When considering whether the facts found proved at Particular 3 amounted to misconduct, the Panel noted that not all breaches of the HCPC’s “Standards of performance, conduct and ethics” need amount to a finding of misconduct. However, any instance of dishonesty was likely to impair a registrant’s fitness to practise and it would be unusual where this is not found to be the case.

66.           The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor  who reminded the Panel of the meaning prescribed to misconduct in the case of Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311, in which it was said:

“Misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a … practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the misconduct to the profession ... Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious.”

67.           In Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) the Court referred to Roylance where the Court described misconduct as “a falling short by omission or commission of the standards of conduct expected among medical practitioners, and such falling short must be serious” such that it would be “regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.

68.           The Panel adopted a two-step process in its consideration. Firstly, the Panel considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. Secondly, and only if the facts proved were found to amount to misconduct, the Panel would go on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired as a result of that misconduct.

69.           Given the Panel’s findings in relation to Particular 3, it concluded that the Registrant breached standards 9.1 and 9.5 of the HCPC’s “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”.

70.           Radiographers are expected at all times to act in a professional manner. They must make sure that their conduct at all times justifies both service users’ and the public’s trust in the profession.

71.           However, the Panel was mindful that a finding of misconduct did not necessarily follow as a result.

72.           The Panel carefully considered the seriousness of the Registrant’s failings. In doing so, it identified that the Registrant failed to self-refer to the HCPC when required to do so. Such failure had the potential to undermine the HCPC’s ability to carry out its regulatory function which is dependent on members of the profession complying with the standards of conduct which they sign up to on admission. Any failing to adhere to that principle is likely to have a significant detrimental effect on public confidence in the profession

73.           Having heard and accepted the advice received from the Legal Assessor and for the reasons set out above, the Panel concluded that the matters found proved and subsequent breaches of the HCPC’s “Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”, were sufficiently serious departures from the standards expected of a Radiographer as to amount to misconduct. 

74.           The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s conduct as found proved at Particular 3 amounted to misconduct. 

75.           The Panel then went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of her misconduct. 

76.           In considering whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, the Panel adopted the approach formulated by Dame Janet Smith in her Fifth report of the Shipman inquiry by asking itself the following questions:

“Does the Registrant’s conviction, and the facts relating to the conviction show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he:

a)          has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

b)          has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or

c)          has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession and/or

d)          has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future”

77.           The Panel considered the personal component of impairment and considered the issues of insight and remediation. It noted that the Registrant has not provided any up to date evidence of demonstrable insight or steps she has taken to address her conduct apart from her email of 9 October 2022.

78.           The Panel noted that apart from the Registrant’s email, she has had limited engagement with the regulatory process. It concluded that there was no meaningful evidence before it to demonstrate that the Registrant had shown insight into the impact of her misconduct on the reputation of the profession.

79.           In addition, the Panel concluded that the Registrant, whilst apologising for her actions, did not take full personal responsibility for her failure to notify the HCPC of her convictions. Instead, she purported to hold others responsible for her failure to do so, by for example:

·       Asserting that she had not been told by the court that she had been convicted of any criminal offence;

·       Relying on the fact that the court solicitor suggested that the Registrant merely needed to “pay the fine and walk away”; and

·       Stating that her employer had not advised her that she needed to notify the HCPC of the convictions when the DBS check had been completed because the underlying facts were not associated with her job.

80.           Even if true, the Registrant has failed to fully recognise or reflect on the fact that it was incumbent on her, irrespective of the input of others, to be familiar with her obligations as a registered professional to self-refer to the HCPC as soon as possible after being convicted, in accordance with Standard 9.5.

81.           The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, namely that it is incumbent on members of the profession when they have been convicted of a criminal offence, to report that to their regulator in a timely manner. By failing to do so, the Registrant’s behaviour brought the profession into disrepute.

82.           Given the nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, the Panel found that paragraphs (b) and (c) referred to in the case of Grant were engaged,

83.           Noting the absence of demonstrable evidence of sufficient insight or remediation of her failure to comply with professional standards, the Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her misconduct on the personal component of impairment.

84.           The Panel then considered the public component of impairment.

85.           The Panel has borne in mind the overarching objective of fitness to practise proceedings in that it should consider, not only the need to protect the public, but the need to uphold the reputation of the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. In doing so, the Panel has borne in mind the comments of Mrs Justice Cox in the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) where Mrs Justice Cox noted:

“In determining whether a practitioner’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.”

86.           Given the nature of the Registrant’s misconduct as set out above, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of her. The Panel considered that a right-minded member of the public, hearing all of the circumstances and evidence of the case, would consider that this case necessitated a finding of current impairment if public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process is to be maintained. Such a finding is necessary to declare and uphold standards of the profession and to maintain confidence in it. Failure to do so would give the mistaken impression that reporting convictions to one’s regulator was unimportant or anything other than a mandatory requirement.

87.           The Panel therefore determined that the need to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be seriously undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. Therefore, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is also currently impaired by reason of her misconduct on the public component of impairment.

88.           For the avoidance of doubt, and in line with Ms Molyneux’s submissions on behalf of the HCPC, the Panel makes no finding of current impairment on public protection grounds.

Decision on Sanction
 
Submissions
 
89.           Ms Molyneux drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (“Sanctions Policy”) and reminded the Panel of the sanction options available to it. Ms Molyneux made no specific submission as to which was the appropriate sanction to impose, but stated that it remained a matter for the Panel. However she submitted that a sanction was warranted in this case but accepted that a striking-off order would be disproportionate. However, she reminded the Panel of the need to protect the reputation of the profession and to uphold standards.

90.           Ms Molyneux reminded the Panel that the Registrant has no previous regulatory findings.

Registrant’s submissions

91.           No submissions have been received by or on behalf of the Registrant in relation to sanction. 

Decision
 
92.           The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He advised the Panel that the full range of sanctions is available to it. He advised the Panel that it should bear in mind its duty to protect the public interest which includes maintaining and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, maintaining the reputation of the profession, and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

93.           The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that any sanction it imposes must be the least restrictive sanction that is sufficient to protect the public and the public interest, having identified any aggravating and mitigating factors. He reminded the Panel that the purpose of a sanction is not punitive, although it may have that effect. He advised the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

Panel’s consideration and determination

94.           The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had due regard to the Sanctions Policy with particular reference to those paragraphs on dishonesty, breach of trust, convictions and sexual misconduct. The Panel has considered any aggravating and mitigating factors and has borne in mind the principle of proportionality.

95.           The Panel identified the following aggravating factor, namely that, as set out in its determination on impairment, the Registrant has shown limited insight.

96.           The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

(a)            The Registrant has a previous good regulatory history;

(b)            She has apologised for her ignorance in failing to report her convictions earlier;

(c)             Her failure to report her convictions to the HCPC, whilst unacceptable, arose from inadvertence and lack of knowledge rather than from a dishonest attempt to conceal her convictions; 

(d)            Her conduct posed no risk of harm to the public; and

(e)            She has not repeated her misconduct.

97.           The Panel first considered taking no action but concluded that, given the seriousness of the misconduct, this would be inappropriate and inadequate given the wider public interest of maintaining confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process. Such an outcome was therefore neither appropriate nor proportionate in the circumstances. 

98.           The Panel next considered mediation, but having had due regard to the circumstances of this case, such an outcome was inappropriate to address the issues identified in this case. It therefore concluded that this was not a relevant or appropriate outcome.

99.           The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order and had regard to paragraphs 99 - 102 of the Sanctions Policy as to when such an order might be appropriate. The Panel determined that in all the circumstances a Caution Order was appropriate and proportionate to protect the public interest. In reaching its decision, it was mindful that the Registrant’s misconduct was isolated, arose from inadvertence rather than an attempt to deceive her regulator, and with a low risk of repetition. 

100.       The Panel considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order was appropriate. It has had regard to paragraphs 105-109 of the SP. The Panel has had regard to the fact that there are no concerns with the Registrant’s practice or competency as a Radiographer. A Conditions of Practice Order, which focusses on the need to remedy practice deficiencies, would not be appropriate or relevant to the facts of this case. This is not a case where there are ongoing concerns in relation to identifiable areas of the Registrant’s practice which could be addressed by the imposition of conditions of practice. The Panel has therefore concluded that such a sanction would neither be appropriate nor proportionate to address the public interest concerns identified.

101.       In satisfying itself that a Caution Order was appropriate, and having concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order was inappropriate, the Panel went on to consider the sanction of suspension. The Panel has borne in mind that this might be an appropriate sanction to impose where the allegation is serious but is unlikely to be repeated. The Panel has borne in mind paragraphs 118 - 126 of the ISP which states such a sanction might be appropriate where “there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings”. The Panel noted paragraph 124 of the SP in that a short period of suspension might be appropriate where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where further action is required in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. 

102.       In light of its findings, and particularly, bearing in mind the mitigating factors present, the Panel considered that the need to protect the public interest by sending a clear message upholding and declaring proper standards of conduct and behaviour, could be met by the imposition of a Caution Order. In considering the length of the Caution Order, the Panel considered that the gravity of the misconduct could be adequately reflected by a 1 year order, given the period of time that has elapsed since the incident arose without any further concerns having been raised. Such an order, it concluded, was proportionate to address the public interest concerns and marks the unacceptability of the Registrant’s conduct. Applying the principle in Chaudhury v GMC [2002] UKPC 41, the Panel is mindful that any sanction imposed should be no more severe than it needs to be to achieve its ends. It therefore concluded that a Suspension Order would be disproportionate and unduly punitive.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Ms Maria Jarvis with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 1 year from the date this order comes into effect. 

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

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

History of Hearings for Maria Jarvis