Charles K Jimingo

Preliminary Matters

Proceeding in private

1.    The Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that reference was made within the papers to the health of the Registrant. She invited the Panel to hear information in relation to the Registrant’s health in private, but to conduct the rest of the hearing in public in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

2.    The Registrant supported the application that information in relation to his health should be received in private. 

3.    The Panel received legal advice, which it accepted and applied, and was referred to both the Practice Note “Conducting Hearings in Private” and the provisions of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst mindful that there is a presumption that hearings will be in public, the Panel recognised that the Registrant was entitled to privacy in relation to his private life, specifically in relation to his health. Accordingly, whilst the Panel was content that the majority of the hearing should proceed in public, it determined that it was appropriate for any references to the Registrant’s health to be considered in private.

4.    The Panel noted that there was an observer present at the hearing who was an employee of the HCPC observing for training purposes and would therefore be entitled to remain in the hearing throughout.

Background

5.    The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Occupational Therapist. 

6.    At the material time, the Registrant was employed as an Occupational Therapist by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (‘the Trust’) between mid to late October 2021 and December 2021. During his employment, he was based at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich (‘the Hospital’). 

7.    On 12 November 2021, a formal complaint was made to the Trust in respect of the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleague A, particularly in respect of inappropriate comments and invasion of her personal space. The Trust commenced an internal investigation into the complaint. It was alleged that the Registrant gave a dishonest account of the incident which was the subject of the investigation. The account differed materially to the CCTV footage of the incident. 

8.    The Registrant resigned his employment on 8 December 2021, before the disciplinary process had concluded.

9.    The Trust referred concerns about the Registrant to the HCPC on 9 February 2022. The concerns raised by Colleague A were investigated by the HCPC and led it to speak with Colleague C. Colleague C said that the Registrant made inappropriate comments about her appearance, such as the fact that he found her attractive. 

10.    An allegation was particularised against the Registrant and found proved at a substantive hearing which concluded on 31 October 2024. The substantive panel considered the conduct to be remediable and noted that the Registrant was “willing and able to resolve the concerns”. It found a Suspension Order for a period of 9 months to be the appropriate and proportionate sanction to protect the public and mark the seriousness of the misconduct. It considered that the Registrant had shown some limited insight and “undertaken some courses on the path towards remediation of his practice”. It considered that “to impose a lengthier period would go further than is required to meet the overarching objectives of the regulator”. Further, it discounted a Striking Off Order as “although serious, the sexually motivated conduct and the dishonesty in this case were not at the most serious end of the spectrum of such conduct, such as conduct involving violence, physical or sexual assault or criminal conduct”. It determined that imposing such an order would be disproportionate and punitive. The substantive panel suggested the Registrant could assist a future reviewing panel by providing:

a.    evidence of well-developed insight, such as a written reflective piece;

b.    evidence of further professional development in the areas of professional boundaries, dignity, respect, and trust;

c.    references and testimonials relevant to the findings in this case.

11.    The Suspension Order was reviewed by the first reviewing panel on 25 July 2025. The Registrant provided evidence of reflection and training and gave evidence to the panel. The HCPC informed the panel that two further fitness to practice matters had been referred to the HCPC:

a.    FTP94694 – received on 10 February 2025 – raised concerns from a colleague as to the Registrant’s conduct towards her, which predated the imposition of the Suspension Order; 

b.    FTP96368 – notified to the Registrant on 25 November 2024 – raised concerns from a former colleague as to the Registrant’s conduct towards her which spanned a period before and after the imposition of the Suspension Order.

The above concerns were subject to investigation by the HCPC.

12.    The first reviewing panel identified that the Registrant showed improved insight and “developing understanding and awareness about people’s personal space and what is appropriate, as set out in his reflective piece” but was concerned that his insight was not fully developed, given he showed no recognition of the serious nature of the allegation or the impact of his actions on his former colleagues. He also had not provided evidence of reflection on the dishonesty finding. It noted that there was no evidence of the training undertaken shortly before the review hearing being applied to ensure the misconduct was not repeated. Further, the Registrant did not accept his conduct fell below expected professional standards. It also noted the additional concerns of a similar nature. The first reviewing panel found the Registrant impaired on the personal and public component. It concluded that the nature of the concern was such that a Conditions of Practice Order would be insufficient to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. However, the panel did not consider a Striking Off Order to be proportionate given the Registrant’s “developing insight and willingness to resolve matters”. It therefore imposed a Suspension Order for a further 6 months. 

13.    The Registrant did not attend the second review of the Suspension Order on 18 February 2026 but did provide a reflective piece for the consideration of the panel as well as testimonials. The panel considered this information to be “very generalised” and, in respect of the dishonesty aspect, “very limited”. There was no evidence of how the tools and strategies referenced by the Registrant would be applied to his practice to ensure no repetition of the misconduct. Upon analysis of the training undertaken by the Registrant, the panel concluded that “some of the courses were not relevant to the matters being considered and further, where relevant courses had been undertaken, there was nothing from the Registrant outlining his learning from the courses attended”. It determined that the Registrant remained impaired on the personal and public components of impairment as there remained a risk of repetition, albeit reduced. The second reviewing panel endorsed the findings of the first reviewing panel in respect of the seriousness of the conduct. It also recognised the steps taken by the Registrant and his developing insight, but concluded that a further Suspension Order for 6 months was appropriate to protect the public and uphold public confidence in the profession and the Regulator. It highlighted that a future reviewing panel would be assisted by the Registrant:

a.    attending at a future review hearing;

b.    providing evidence that he has developed full insight into his misconduct;

c.    providing evidence of strategies for avoiding repetition of his misconduct and development of an understanding of his responsibilities towards duty of candour and / or honesty; 

d.    providing reflections of his learning from relevant training attended; and

e.    testimonials / references from current paid and / or unpaid work addressing his behaviour in the workplace, including, but not limited to, professional boundaries in the workplace.

Submissions

14.    The Presenting Officer outlined the background to the concerns and submitted that the HCPC sought a further period of suspension for 6 months. She submitted that the question for the Panel was whether the Registrant remains impaired. To determine this, she suggested the Panel should consider the findings and recommendations of previous panels and assess the extent to which the Registrant has discharged his burden to persuade the Panel that he is no longer impaired. 

15.    The Registrant had, in the Presenting Officer’s submission, engaged with the HCPC but not to a sufficient extent to answer all of the concerns identified by previous panels. She referred the Panel to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, as well as the remarks of Dame Janet Smith, which were endorsed in the case of CHRE v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), as to whether the Registrant:

a.    posed a risk to patients;

b.    had brought the profession into disrepute;

c.    had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession; 

d.    could be relied upon to act with integrity. 

16.    The Presenting Officer confirmed that all sanctions were open to the Panel and invited it to impose a Suspension Order for a further 6 months to enable the Registrant to fully address the concerns identified by previous panels. She also confirmed that there had been no further regulatory concerns raised since the last hearing, but that the investigation into the two outstanding fitness to practise matters continued. Accordingly, neither matter had been put before an Investigating Committee Panel. 

17.    The Registrant made written and oral submissions to the Panel and answered questions of clarification. He told the Panel that he had “reflected thoroughly consciously and unconsciously” and was aware of the impact of his conduct on his life and his colleagues. He would try to ensure that this misconduct would not happen ever again by maintaining personal and professional standards and supporting others in similar situations. He offered his sincere apologies for his wrongdoing and promised to make sure it would not be repeated. He confirmed that he: 

a.    is currently working as a delivery driver and applying his learning to that role by making sure he listens to what people say and hears them to communicate appropriately;

b.    focuses on what is appropriate to be productive in work and help others; 

c.    communicates professionally and appropriately; 

d.    maintains professional boundaries and personal space, telling the Panel how he calculates personal space and the importance of eye contact. 

e.    Respects individual colleagues and their dignity, keeping discussions to appropriate topics. 

18.    The Registrant reminded the Panel that the conduct related to his first role after graduating from university, and that he struggled to adapt from his relationships at university to the required professional relationships and expectations. He said he now knew how to maintain distance and be careful with professional relationships. He was aware of the duty to support colleagues struggling with their mental health and how to support them. 

Decision

19.    The Panel noted, accepted, and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor and had careful regard to the documentation and submissions it received. It also had regard to the Practice Notes issued by the HCPTS and the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. It was mindful that the purpose of the mandatory review was not to go behind the findings of previous panels but to determine whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, and if so, to determine what action would be appropriate to address that impairment. The key issue for the Panel to determine is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed. The factors to be taken into account include: 

a.    the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;

b.    the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;

c.    the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve his professional knowledge and skills; 

d.    whether any other fitness to practise issues have arisen; 

20.    The Panel was mindful it should assess whether the concerns which led to a finding of impairment at a hearing in October 2024 remain. As the decision in Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin) indicates, in practical terms this places a “persuasive burden” on the Registrant to demonstrate that he has fully acknowledged the issues which led to the original finding and has addressed them sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”.

21.    The Panel reminded itself that when reviewing sanctions under Article 30 of the Order, the reviewing panel may:

a.    confirm the order; 

b.    extend, or further extend, the duration of the order; 

c.    reduce the duration of the order; 

d.    replace the order with any other order which the Panel could have made (to run for the remaining term of the original order); or 

e.    revoke the order or revoke or vary any condition imposed by it.

22.    The decision reached by the Panel must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection. In determining whether fitness to practise is currently impaired, panels must take account of a range of issues which, in essence, comprise two components: 

a.    the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the individual registrant; and 

b.    the ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold professional standards, and maintain public confidence in the profession. 
The personal component includes the risk of repetition and to what extent any misconduct has been remedied. In respect of the public component, the Panel has to consider public policy issues, which include the need to maintain confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold the HCPC Standards of Proficiency.

23.    Previous panels considering this matter had thoughtfully produced comprehensive determinations which the Panel accepted and endorsed. It was mindful that the substantive panel considered that the misconduct was remediable and encouraged the Registrant to provide information to assist a future reviewing panel. Both the first and second reviewing panels also provided guidance as to what may assist a future reviewing panel. 

24.    The Panel was satisfied that, whilst the Registrant had provided a more in-depth reflective piece for its consideration which addressed how his conduct impacted his colleagues and the profession, and addressed the issue of dishonesty, he had not provided evidence of further training or continuing professional development, or testimonials as to his character. It noted there was also no evidence of examples as to how the Registrant had applied his learning and reflection to his working relationships. The Panel was of the view that the strategies identified by the Registrant appeared to be in their infancy and was not satisfied that they mitigated the risk of repetition of the misconduct, given the Registrant’s failure to evidence their application.

25.    The Panel noted that the Registrant had not practised his profession since October 2024 and provided it with no information demonstrating how he was maintaining his knowledge and skills. It noted the limited nature of both the Registrant’s submissions to it and the clarification he provided to the Panel’s questions. It considered that the insight demonstrated was superficial and not supported with evidence of application.

26.    The Panel found that the Registrant’s insight appears to still be developing. The reflective information was appropriate but insufficient without being tied to practical application. It was mindful that the conduct found proved was both sexually motivated and dishonest, repeated towards more than one colleague and harmful to them. Further, similar concerns were also apparently still being investigated by the HCPC and would be addressed in due course. The Panel determined that the Registrant remained impaired on the personal component of impairment. 

27.    Having determined that the Registrant is personally impaired, the Panel found that he remained impaired on the public aspect of impairment also – a member of the public would be concerned if an order were not to be made in the circumstances given the Panel’s findings in relation to repetition, limited insight, sexual motivation, and dishonesty, particularly given the personal and ‘hands on’ nature of the role of many Occupational Therapists. 

28.    Having determined that the Registrant remains impaired, the Panel proceeded to consider what sanction is required to protect the public. It noted and endorsed the findings of previous panels considering this matter that the sanctions of taking no action or imposing a Caution Order are insufficient to protect the public given the nature of the concerns and the ongoing impairment. 

29.    The Panel was mindful of the Sanctions Policy guidance in relation to Conditions of Practice, and was unable to formulate any conditions of practice which would enable a return to practice while addressing the identified concerns as to the Registrant’s conduct. Whilst the Registrant is clearly desirous of returning to the profession, he has not yet, in the Panel’s view, demonstrated sufficient insight to suggest that the attitudinal issues have been addressed and mitigated to the extent that they will not be repeated. Further, he has not demonstrated that he has maintained his clinical skills and knowledge and would therefore be safe to return to practice, even under supervision. 

30.    The Panel decided that the appropriate and proportionate order to impose remained that of suspension. It was mindful that these proceedings relate to complaints which date back to the autumn of 2021 and that the Registrant has not practiced his profession since October 2024. It was conscious that the regulatory proceedings would need to be concluded rather than extended indefinitely. A future reviewing panel would need to carefully balance the public interest in maintaining suitably qualified and experienced registered professionals on the Register against indefinitely perpetuating regulatory proceedings in the hope that a return to practise may be achieved. 

31.    Previous guidance had been offered to the Registrant as to the steps that could assist him to demonstrate that his fitness to practice is no longer impaired; however, the Panel noted that the Registrant was not represented and may not therefore fully understand what is being asked of him. The Panel therefore provide the following recommendations for the Registrant, mindful that they will not bind a future panel, should he wish to return to his regulated profession:

a.    attend and comprehensively engage at any future review so that the Panel can explore, via questions, his training, insight, and understanding; 

b.    undertake learning related to the concerns identified, whether in a regulated role or otherwise, in relation to:

i.    professional boundaries; 

ii.    the duty of candour

iii.    professional working relationships; 

c.    evidence reflection on the knowledge gained by him from continuing professional development has been applied and / or would be applied in his future practice; 

d.    a formal reflective practice piece setting out the impact of his acts / omissions on:

i.    Colleagues A and C; 

ii.    the profession; 

iii.    the Regulation of the profession;

e.    a case study of how he has effectively and appropriately worked in partnership with others in a professional environment; 

f.    provide comprehensive and up-to-date references and / or testimonials from individuals who have had contact with him, whether in a regulated role or otherwise, which specifically address the failings identified by the substantive panel, namely: 

i.    working collaboratively with colleagues; 

ii.    honesty and integrity;

iii.    understanding the duty of candour.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Charles K Jimingo from the Register for a further period of 6 months. 

The Order imposed today will apply from 28 August 2026.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 28 February 2027.

History of Hearings for Charles K Jimingo