Salvatore Tavilla

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of the Allegation

1. At the commencement of the hearing, the Allegation was amended in two respects. Both amendments were required to correct errors in the drafting of the Allegation. No objection to them was raised by or on behalf of the Registrant. The two amendments were:
• The concluding words of Particular 1(a) were “….. “Hope you don’t mind me having a peek ‘wink fact emoji’”. It had clearly been intended to allege that the emoji was a wink face, not fact.
• The original wording of Particular 3 was, “The matters set out in Particular 1 above constitute misconduct”. As the contention advanced by Particular 2 that the Registrant’s conduct in sending the messages was sexual was a proposition of fact, it should have been included as a matter potentially amounting to misconduct. Accordingly it was necessary to amend Particular 3 to allege, “The matters set out in Particular 1 and/or Particular 2 above constitute misconduct”.
2. The Panel was satisfied that the amendments were required to correct drafting errors and that the Registrant would not be prejudiced by them being made. They were accordingly made.

The Registrant’s response to the Allegation

3. When the Registrant was offered the opportunity to respond to the Allegation as amended, Ms Williamson on his behalf stated:
• Each element of Particular 1 was admitted.
• Particular 2 was admitted with regard to the message alleged by Particular 1(c), but otherwise denied.
• Misconduct was admitted in relation to the factual matters admitted by the Registrant, but otherwise denied.
• It was denied that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.
The Panel’s decision in the light of the Registrant’s admissions
4. The Panel reminded itself of the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Admissions”, and, in Particular, that it had a discretion as to whether an admission should result in it being declared at the commencement of the case that the matter is proven. However, the Panel was satisfied it was appropriate to record at that stage that the factual elements of the Allegation admitted by the Registrant were proven.

Background

5. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist.
6. The Registrant graduated from a university in Italy with a degree in Physiotherapy in November 2010. Between January 2011 and August 2016 he practised as a Physiotherapist in Italy. He was registered with the HCPC in March 2017 and moved to the United Kingdom very shortly thereafter. From June 2017 to May 2018 he worked as a Senior Physiotherapist for an organisation offering physiotherapy services, leaving that employment to take up employment with an organisation named Ascenti. The employment with Ascenti was also as a Senior Physiotherapist and was commenced on 20 August 2018. On 12 March 2021, the Registrant gave notice to Ascenti that he would be leaving that employment in order to take up other employment. This was before the complaint of Service User B was received by Ascenti in the circumstances that will be described.
7. Service User B was involved in a road traffic accident in early April 2019 in which she suffered neck and shoulder injuries. Her insurers referred her to a firm of Solicitors, and in turn that firm of Solicitors referred her to Ascenti for physiotherapy. The Physiotherapist Service User B saw at Ascenti was the Registrant. There was an absence of clear evidence provided to the Panel as to how many physiotherapy sessions it was intended Service User B would receive, as to the precise numbers of sessions she did in fact attend or as to the dates when she attended. However, it would appear the sessions commenced in June. The evidence received by the Panel suggested that Service User B continued to have sessions after she received the first and second messages complained of, but that she may have ceased attending prior to the third message.
8. It was Service User B’s evidence that at some stage in 2019 after receiving the third message complained of, she complained to the Solicitors about the Registrant’s behaviour. Ascenti was not informed of any complaint in 2019, or, indeed, at any stage before 29 April 2021, when a complaint was made directly to Ascenti by a member of Service User B’s family. It appears that the issue resurfaced at that stage as a result of the settlement of Service User B’s claim for damages arising from the road traffic accident.
9. When Ascenti became aware of Service User B’s complaint, the Registrant had already given notice to end his employment and was on holiday. This fact resulted in Ascenti taking the view that it was not appropriate to conduct a full enquiry into the matter, although he was spoken to by his line manager and there were internal discussions about the matter.

Decision on Facts

10. As a consequence of the Panel’s decision to declare the admitted matters to be proven, it follows that the only factual findings to be made were whether the messages referred to at Particulars 1(a) and/or 1(b) should be included in the finding of sexual conduct alleged by Particular 2.
11. It is important that the Panel should make clear what Particular 2 alleges. It alleges, “Your conduct, in relation to Particular 1 was sexual”. There being different elements of Particular 1, a finding in relation to Particular 2 can only be made by considering those different elements.
12. The contention is not that the Registrant was sexually motivated in sending the messages. It is the conduct, that is alleged to have been sexual. The Panel paid very close attention to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind” issued in August 2025, and, in Particular, to paragraph 14 of that document which is in the following terms:
“In some cases, the Allegation may have been drafted as the registrant's conduct being "sexual in nature" rather than "sexually motivated". In these cases. Panels should not make a finding on what the registrant's state of mind was in relation to the conduct, only whether the conduct was, in itself, sexual in nature. Panels will be assisted in considering the test for a criminal offence of sexual assault, for instance, whether the conduct was:
a. an act which was, whatever the circumstances, sexual; For instance this could include the deliberate touching of the complainant’s genitalia in circumstances where there was no clinical justification for it; or
b. an act that because of its nature may be sexual, and because of the circumstances is sexual. An example of this might be where a registrant sends a text message to a complainant which is capable of being read in different ways, one of which is sexual, and the circumstances suggest that the registrant intended it to be read in that
way.”

13. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer acknowledged that the messages in contention were not explicitly sexual, but he submitted that the Panel should find that they did represent sexual conduct because of the inclusion of the wink emoji placed by the Registrant after each of them.
14. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Williamson urged the Panel to take the view that they could be construed as neither explicitly nor implicitly sexual, as wink emojis are used for different purposes.
15. The HCPC called three witnesses to give evidence, namely:
• Service User B.
• Ms AH, who was formerly employed by Ascenti as a Clinical Governance Officer. Ms AH became aware of the complaint made by the member of Service User B’s family on 5 May 2021. She coordinated Ascenti’s response to that complaint.
• Mr RH, a Physiotherapist who at the time Ascenti became aware of Service User B’s complaint was an Area Manager employed by that organisation. Mr RH spoke to the Registrant about Service User B’s complaint on three occasions, namely twice on 7 May 2021 and again on 10 May 2021.
16. The Registrant gave evidence before the Panel. He accepted that the two messages currently being considered constituted a breach of proper professional boundaries, but contended that they were not intended to be sexual. In relation to the inclusion of the wink emojis he said that he routinely included that emoji when sending text messages and used them “as fillers”.
17. The Panel took some time to be clear about the approach it should take to the construction of Particular 2. As already stated, it does not allege that in sending messages the Registrant was sexually motivated. It is the conduct itself that is alleged to have been sexual. Paragraph 14 of the Practice Note quoted above states that when the Allegation is one of “sexual in nature”, a panel should not make a finding on what the registrant’s state of mind was, but then, in paragraph 14(b), states that if a text message to a complainant which is capable of being read in different ways, one of which is sexual, and the circumstances suggest that the registrant intended it to be read in that way, the act could be held to be sexual.
18. In the judgement of the Panel, the only way in which the Registrant’s intention is relevant to an allegation that the conduct was sexual (as opposed to an allegation of sexually motivated behaviour), would be to decide if an intention transformed something not sexual into something sexual. In this case neither of the messages was explicitly sexual and it was unclear what the intentions of the Registrant were when he sent the messages.
19. The Panel did not find the oral evidence it received assisted it in reaching the decision it was required to make. Neither Ms AH nor Mr RH were involved in sending or receipt of the messages. The Panel had distinct reservations about the reliability of the evidence given by both Service User B and the Registrant. However, it was not the evidence of Service User B that she understood the two messages currently being considered to be sexual. The Registrant’s evidence to the effect that these two messages resulted in a path for the boundary erosion that culminated in the message he accepts to have been sexual, did not assist the Panel in deciding whether the earlier messages represented sexual conduct when they were sent.
20. In the judgement of the Panel, the Presenting Officer was correct to accept that neither of the two messages being considered was explicitly sexual. The Panel also accepted that there were no factors present here other than the wink emoji that could lead to a message that was not explicitly sexual being considered to represent sexual conduct. The Panel accepted the submission made on behalf of the Registrant that wink emojis can be, and are, used in a variety of contexts, not all of them sexual. Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of the wink emoji in both messages was an insufficient basis for reaching a finding that the HCPC had demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the messages alleged by Particular 1(a) and 1(b) represented sexual conduct.
21. The result of these findings is that Particular 1 is proven in its entirety. Particular 2 is proven with regard to Particular 1(c), but not otherwise.

Further evidence and submissions

22. After the Panel handed down its written decision on the fact, it allowed the parties time to consider the document before calling further evidence and making further submissions. The Panel indicated to the parties that it would welcome submissions on both the statutory grounds of misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise, reassuring them that the Panel’s decisions on those issues would be made separately and sequentially.
23. The Registrant gave further evidence directed to the issue of current impairment of fitness to practise. He was asked to tell the Panel about the insight he had gained. The Registrant gave evidence that accorded with the evidence contained in his witness statement dated 5 January 2026, and said that he had reflected on his actions and come to an appreciation not only of what he had done, but also of what it represented. He recognised the impact on Service User B, acknowledging the power imbalance that existed in what should have been a purely professional relationship with her. He stated that he had come to recognise that the observance of proper professional boundaries was not a matter of choice over which there could be flexibility; they exist for a valid reason and are required to protect the patient, the profession and the clinician. When asked to say what steps he had taken to eliminate the risk of repetition, the Registrant stated that he had deleted his social media accounts (save for one that related solely to his professional status). He stated that he had not sent a message of a personal nature to a patient since the last message sent to Service User B, now over six years ago. He acknowledged that the passage of time without recurrence alone would not be sufficient to provide confidence that the risk of recurrence had been removed and stated that he often finds himself second guessing himself, asking himself the question whether what he is doing is appropriate. Referring to the course on professional boundaries he completed in 2022, he stated that he had found the course helpful as it had refreshed his understanding of the importance of maintaining professional boundaries. Repeating the apology he had earlier made, he stated that he recognised the matter was not simply about being sorry, it was about behaving in a way that was professional “full stop”. When asked by the Panel whether he had ever needed to apply the measures he had put in place to ensure that there would not be recurrence, he stated that there had been an occasion when be believed that a patient had behaved in a flirtatious manner towards him, and that he had spoken to his manager about the matter.
24. After the Registrant gave the evidence summarised above, three witnesses were called on his behalf to give oral evidence before the Panel. Each of them is a Physiotherapist and each had knowledge of the Registrant as a result of his current employment with Sano Physiotherapy, the organisation the Registrant moved to in 2021. Each of them had provided written testimonial evidence that the Panel had been able to review in advance of them giving evidence and the witnesses confirmed its accuracy. These witnesses were:
• Mr JD, a First Contact Practitioner and a Clinical Service Lead. Mr JD confirmed that no complaints about the Registrant’s conduct or practice had been received. He also stated that the Registrant had raised issues with him, issues that had primarily been of a clinical nature, but also over difficulties that extended beyond the purely clinical. When Mr JD was asked to comment on the Registrant’s importance to Sano Physiotherapy, he replied that he was extremely valuable. He confirmed that the Registrant had spoken to him asking for guidance when he (the Registrant) believed that a patient had acted in a flirtatious manner towards him.
• Mr JR, until a fortnight ago an Operations Manager, stated that positive feedback had been received with regard to the Registrant, from both male and female patients. He stated that in the period of over four years that the Registrant had worked for Sano Physiotherapy, there had not been a single instance of negative feedback. He said he was aware that the Registrant had raised the issue of a flirtatious patient with management.
• Mr NH, the Head of Clinical Services, in his written testimonial dated 9 December 2025, he stated that the Registrant had been promoted to First Contact Practitioner (“FCP”) Clinical Lead for the North-West and that he was one of the more experienced and skilled clinicians working for the organisation. He too confirmed that he was unaware of complaints or negative feedback, stating that anecdotally the organisation’s FCP customers, Primary Care Networks and General Practitioner Practices had always been positive about the Registrant.
25. In addition to the oral evidence of the three witnesses just described, the Panel was provided with written testimonial evidence. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Williamson stated that these testimonials (having been provided by both men and women) were glowing, a description with which the Panel would not disagree.
26. In his submissions relating to misconduct on behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer referred to the section of the Case Summary he had provided in advance of the commencement of the hearing in which submissions on misconduct had been made. That document included various elements of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016) which the HCPC contended had been breached by the Registrant. These standards will be referred to when the Panel explains its decision on misconduct. Helpful submissions as to the appropriate test to be applied were made. The Presenting Officer submitted that all of the proven factual Particulars were extremely serious breaches, constituting behaviour that fell far short of the standards expected of a registered Physiotherapist. He submitted that the sexual conduct identified in relation to the message sent on 11 July 2019 was even more serious. Accordingly, it was submitted that a finding of misconduct should be made.
27. With regard to current impairment of fitness to practise, the Presenting Officer also made helpful submissions as to the proper approach to the making of a decision. In identifying the relevant questions suggested by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman Report, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant’s behaviour put a patient at an unwarranted risk of harm, that he brought his profession into disrepute and that he breached a fundamental tenet of his profession, namely the need to maintain professional boundaries. As to whether the Registrant was liable to repeat any or all of those failings, the Presenting Officer submitted that the identified breaches are of a category that are capable of being remedied, and that in answering the question whether the Registrant had in fact remedied his shortcomings, the Panel could take account of a number of factors. They included the reflection and training undertaken by the Registrant and that these proceedings have hung over him for some time and may have focused his mind on the inappropriateness of his past behaviour. The Presenting Officer also submitted that a period in excess of six years had passed without repetition of behaviour of which criticism could be made. However, it was the Presenting Officer’s submission that even if the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition had been reduced to such a level that it would not be appropriate to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on the personal component, nevertheless, public confidence would be undermined were there to be no finding of current impairment of fitness to practise made in relation to the public component.
28. It has already been recorded that at the commencement of the hearing the Registrant admitted misconduct in relation to the facts that the Panel is concerned with. It was therefore unsurprising that in her submissions on behalf of the Registrant, Ms Williamson did not dwell on the issue of misconduct. She accepted that the Registrant’s conduct fell short of what was expected and what was proper, although she urged the Panel to acknowledge that when behaviour is categorised as serious or deplorable there are grades of seriousness.
29. In advancing her submissions on current impairment of fitness to practise, Ms Williamson urged the Panel to have regard to the HCPC Practice Note on the topic. She made submission on the itemised factors in paragraph 15 of that document. She reminded the Panel that it was dealing with behaviour that occurred in a period of less than four weeks between 15 June 2019 and 11 July 2019. She urged the Panel to have regard to the testimonial evidence, not only that provided by the three witnesses who gave oral evidence before the Panel, but also that which had been provided in written form. In reply to the question she posed on whether the Registrant posed an ongoing risk to the public, she answered in the negative, drawing attention to the fact that there had been no recurrence in the six years and more since the relevant events. With regard to the public interest, Ms Williamson urged the Panel to take the view that the findings of fact and the decision that those facts constituted professional misconduct would be sufficient to maintain public confidence. She submitted, therefore, that it should not be necessary to reach a finding of impairment of fitness to practise to satisfy the public component.

Decision on Misconduct

30. In reaching its decisions on both misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel heeded the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Professional Boundaries” issued in August 2024.
31. The Panel began its deliberations on misconduct by considering whether the Registrant breached the standards of behaviour required to be observed by the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. The relevant version of those Standards is those that were issued in January 2016. The conclusion of the Panel was that he did breach the standards that were identified by the Presenting Officer, namely:
• Standard 1.1, “You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.”
• Standard 1.7, “You must keep your relationships with service users ….. professional.”
• Standard 2.7, “You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.”
• Standard 9.1, “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”
32. Accepting that a breach of a standard should not automatically be translated into a finding of misconduct, the Panel then went on to assess the seriousness of the breaches. In the judgement of the Panel, the breaches were serious. Paragraph 10 of the Professional Boundaries Practice Note lists a number of factors to be considered in assessing the seriousness of a breach. In the judgement of the Panel, two of them, (a) and (g) are relevant to this case. So far as harm or the risk of harm is concerned, there was a conflict of evidence between Service User B (who said that she terminated her treatment early as a result of the message sent on 11 July 2019) and the Registrant (who stated that Service User B was discharged having completed the treatment she was to receive). In the view of the Panel, the Registrant’s behaviour was no less serious if his version is correct; to indulge in sexualised conduct with a service user necessarily involves the risk of harm because of the risk that the service user will disengage from further treatment with the perpetrator of the behaviour and, possibly, with further treatment from another practitioner. With regard to factor (g), the Registrant searched for Service User B, doing so using information that had been disclosed to him in a clinical setting.
33. The sending of the message sent on 11 July 2019, a message that was appropriately accepted by the Registrant to have been sexual conduct, was clearly an act that constituted misconduct. The Panel was also satisfied that the sending of the other two messages was conduct that was sufficiently serious to be categorised as misconduct because it represented behaviour that involved the Registrant putting his own interests before those of Service User B. It follows that the proven facts, both individually and collectively, constitute misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

34. Having decided that misconduct was established, the Panel went on to make a decision about current impairment of fitness to practise. The Panel paid careful attention to the HCPC Practice Note on the topic, and, in Particular, heeded the guidance contained in that document that it should consider separately the issues of the personal component and the public component.
35. It is important to identify what factors are potentially impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise. It is those factual matters determined by the Panel to be proven, and those alone. It is not a case in which the Registrant’s clinical ability has been brought into question, and, so far as inappropriate messaging and breaches of professional boundaries are concerned, it is the three messages sent between 15 June 2019 and 11 July 2019 to Service User B that are in issue. The HCPC does not advance the case on the basis that those messages are representative of other similar behaviour on the part of the Registrant.
36. The Panel’s finding of misconduct underlines the fact that the sending of the messages to Service User B was a serious breach of the Registrant’s professional responsibilities. It was deliberate behaviour, and it was conduct that the Registrant would have been well aware at the time of sending was inappropriate. In these circumstances, any panel will require convincing evidence to be satisfied that the risk of repetition has been significantly reduced. Against this background the Panel reviewed the evidence with special care.
37. The Panel accepted that the Registrant has fully acknowledged the seriousness of his behaviour. He has apologised for it and expressed remorse. His reflections have been thorough, and have included an understanding of why the maintenance of proper professional boundaries is important. The Panel considered the Registrant had good insight into his misconduct as evidenced by his written reflections, his oral evidence and the training he has undertaken.
38. The Panel also accepted that there had been no recurrence of similar behaviour since July 2019. It is clear from the Registrant’s supporting evidence that he is a clinician held in high regard and the Registrant is also obviously committed to his professional career as a Physiotherapist. In the view of the Panel, the Registrant is acutely aware of the jeopardy in which his future career has been placed by his behaviour towards Service User B.
39. A further matter that registered with the Panel was the evidence he gave in response to a Panel question about his actions when he believed he was on the receiving end of flirtatious behaviour by a service user. The evidence he gave about seeking managerial guidance was confirmed by the evidence of Mr JD and Mr JR, which confirmed that the Registrant had applied matters upon which he had reflected.
40. Having regard to all the factors relevant to the decision, the Panel concluded that a finding that his fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component is not justified. This is because the risk that the Registrant would repeat behaviour of the type that has been found is very low.
41. The Panel then went on to consider the public component. The Panel followed the approach set out in paragraphs 32 to 35 inclusive of the relevant Practice Note.
42. The Panel’s finding already described that there is a low risk of repetition is sufficient to deal with the first of the three issues identified in the Practice Note, namely, the need to protect service users. In the view of the Panel, the low risk of repetition means that the need to protect service users is not engaged.
43. However, after very careful consideration, the Panel concluded that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise is required to address the other factors that are relevant to the public component, namely, maintaining professional standards and upholding public confidence in the profession of physiotherapy and the regulation of it. In the judgement of the Panel, fair-minded members of the public, accepting the nature of the issues being considered, the passage of time since they occurred and the fact that there had been no recurrence, would nevertheless take the view that the Registrant’s behaviour was so serious that confidence would be diminished without the matter being marked by a finding of impairment of fitness to practise. Similarly, the Panel is satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to declare proper professional standards were it not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise. To fail to make that finding would be to fail to send an appropriate message to other registrants who might otherwise feel tempted to breach professional boundaries.
44. The result of these findings is that the Panel finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on the public component alone. That conclusion means that the Allegation is well founded and the Panel must go on to consider the issue of sanction.

Decision on Sanction

45. After the Panel handed down its written decision explaining its decisions on misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise, it allowed the parties time to consider the document before inviting them to make submissions on sanction.
46. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer made it clear at the commencement of his submissions that the HCPC did not submit that the Panel should impose any Particular sanction. Rather, he made submissions on the proper approach to the making of a sanction decision and identified various factors which the Panel might consider to be relevant. The Presenting Officer drew the attention of the Panel to the section of the Sanctions Policy commencing at paragraph 25 in which mitigating factors are referred to. He submitted that the Panel might take the view that the Registrant had developed insight, expressed remorse, apologised and that he had remediated his shortcomings. He submitted that if the Panel accepted those submissions, they should follow through to the sanction decision to be made. The Presenting Officer also reminded the Panel that the Registrant had not only admitted the factual Particulars found by the Panel to be proven, but that he had also accepted that it would be appropriate to make a finding of misconduct in relation to those issues. Additionally, the Registrant had undertaken relevant training and that there had been no repetition of untoward behaviour in the lengthy period that has passed since the relevant events. By reference to various paragraphs of the Sanctions Policy, the Presenting Officer drew the attention of the Panel to various categories into which it might be thought the case fell. These were:
• breach of trust (paragraph 45);
• service user harm and potential for harm (paragraph 54);
• abuse of professional position (paragraphs 67 – 69);
• predatory behaviour (paragraphs 71 & 72); and,
• sexual misconduct (76), recognising that the present case might well be thought to lie towards the bottom end of the scale.
47. On behalf of the Registrant, Ms Williamson’s submission was that the Panel should decide to make no order. To make good her submission that this would be the appropriate outcome, she addressed the available sanctions from the most severe to the least. Her submission was that in the circumstances, both a striking off order and an order of suspension would be wholly disproportionate. She submitted that the findings made by the Panel in the present case did not give rise to the need to impose any conditions of practice, and, indeed, that there would not be any conditions that would be appropriate. With regard to a caution order, she submitted that very little would be gained by making such an order as there had been no transgression by the Registrant in the period of over six years since the relevant events. She submitted that to impose no sanction would meet the Panel’s decision on impairment of fitness to practise and would represent a proportionate response.
48. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel proceeded on the basis that any decision should represent the least restrictive outcome consistent with any need to protect service users from the risk of harm, to maintain an appropriate level of confidence in the profession of physiotherapy and to declare and uphold proper professional standards. It is therefore necessary to start with a decision as to whether any sanction is required, and, only if it is decided that a sanction is required, consider the available sanctions in an ascending order of seriousness. The Panel is required to heed the guidance in the Sanctions Policy. Furthermore, given the nature of the present case, the Panel again had regard to the Professional Boundaries Practice Note.
49. The Panel began by deciding whether there were aggravating factors. In explaining its reasons for the finding of misconduct, the Panel has already stated why the findings represented serious fallings short of expected standards of behaviour. In the judgement of the Panel there were no factors that further aggravated the seriousness of the misconduct, although it is appropriate to underscore that the finding of misconduct was made on the basis that one of the messages was sexualised. With regard to the specific issues identified by the Presenting Officer by reference to the Sanctions Policy, it is, of course, correct that these boundary breaches constituted a breach of trust and gave rise to the risk of harm, as all boundary breaches do. Similarly, there was a breach of professional position because the Registrant’s ability to search online for Service User B arose from the professional relationship he had with her. The Panel would not categorise the Registrant’s behaviour in this case to be so serious as to amount to predatory behaviour because of the limited inappropriate contact, and, as acknowledged by the Presenting Officer, the sexual misconduct in this case was very much at the lower end of the scale that can be imagined.
50. The Panel next considered the matters that might be taken into account in favour of the Registrant. The Panel considered that all of the factors identified by the Presenting Officer (and summarised at paragraph 46 above) should be taken into account. Added to those matters, the Panel also took the view that the absence of a fitness to practise history, the Registrant’s acceptance that he sent messages when asked by Ascenti and his openness with Sano Physiotherapy about this matter and these fitness to practise proceedings were also relevant. However, the Panel kept in mind the fact that, given the overarching rationale for fitness to practise proceedings, matters of personal mitigation are likely to be of secondary importance, a fact underlined by paragraph 25 of the Sanctions Policy.
51. Before proceeding to make its decision, the Panel reminded itself of the decision it had made in relation to the two components of impairment of fitness to practise. In the judgement of the Panel, the very low risk of repetition, for present purposes translated to there being no requirement to impose a sanction to protect the public. However, the Panel’s decision made in relation to the public component of impairment of fitness to practise means that it is necessary to ensure that any decision made would represent a response that would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulation of it, and also to send an unequivocal message that the Registrant’s breaching of professional boundaries was inappropriate.
52. The only way in which Ms Williamson’s submission that there should be no order could be assessed was by deciding if a sanction was required. Having reviewed paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy, the conclusion of the Panel was that a caution order would not be inappropriate given the Panel’s findings on impairment on fitness to practise and the other relevant factors already described. The Panel then went on to consider the more restrictive sanctions. The Panel agreed with the submission of Ms Williamson that there are no factors present in this case that require the imposition of conditions of practice to either protect service users or to serve the reasons why the Panel reached a finding of public component impairment of fitness to practise. The imposition of a suspension order would not be proportionate, still less a striking off order.
53. After having reviewed the available sanctions and concluded that the making of a caution order would not be inappropriate, the Panel returned to consider Ms Williamson’s submission that there should be no order. The Panel approached the issue on the basis that it needed to decide whether the imposition of a caution order was required to address the factors of confidence and declaring of proper professional standards that had led to the decision on impairment of fitness to practise. Having very carefully considered the matter, and having acknowledged that the making of no order is an unusual outcome, the Panel concluded that the imposition of a caution order was not necessary. The reason for this decision was that the finding that the Allegation is well founded (a finding that incorporates both a finding of misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise) is sufficient to satisfy the all-important considerations of public confidence and declaration of proper standards. In reaching this decision the Panel again reminded itself that this is not a case in which public protection needs to be addressed, and also of the fact that a very lengthy period of time has passed during which the Registrant has behaved entirely appropriately. It follows that the making of a caution order is unnecessary, and being unnecessary should not be imposed.
54. The Panel concludes the case by stating that the Allegation is well founded but that pursuant to Article 29(4)(b) of the Health Professions Order 2001 it takes no action with regard to sanction.

No information currently available

Final Hearing of the conduct and competence committee to take place from 12-16 January 2026 at 10:00am on day 1 and 09:30 am days 2-5.

History of Hearings for Salvatore Tavilla