Gary J Denby

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.    The Panel had information before it that the Notice of Hearing was sent by email, dated 9 June 2026, to the Registrant’s email address on the HCPC Register. The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Service of Documents’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

2.    The Panel was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with Rules 3 and 6 of the HCPC Conduct and Competence (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in absence 

3.    Ms Sampson, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She noted that good service had been effected and highlighted the email sent by the Registrant which acknowledged that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing and stated that he would not be attending as follows:

“…A review is a complete waste of my time and of HCPC resources. I retired seven months ago. My case back in February 2026 was a similar waste. No one with decision-making powers ever reads my file - they keep on with the same old accusations, without taking account of my detailed explanations. My file just keeps growing into hundreds of pages, which no-one has time to read. It’s all from so long ago, no-one remembers the situation in any detailed accuracy.

You say that your procedures must be followed. They are a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. They need to be changed and streamlined for the better (including a proper risk-benefit analysis early on, for both the accuser and the accused). The HCPC fails repeatedly in its obligation to protect the patient from harmful practice and the registered practitioner from unjust or malicious accusation. It invents work for itself.

I notified your system of my pending retirement on several occasions back in 2025. Perhaps the penny will soon drop? I cancelled my direct debit; to draw attention in your finances department - again no one does anything. My Royal College of Podiatry keep telling you that they’re no longer interested - again ignored repeatedly for six months, until very recently. I question the HCPC fitness to govern the health care professions; them seeming more as a stumbling block and a dis-incentive to future recruitment. This promotes the growth of unlicensed, unregulated practitioners; again subverting the HCPC’s declared aims to protect the public.

Understandably, I will not be attending. I am retired from the profession. You will please convey my dissatisfaction with the HCPC activities over the past four years.

Goodbye.”

4.    Ms Sampson noted the wider public interest in the hearing proceeding as scheduled. Ms Sampson noted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and she submitted that an adjournment of proceedings was unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance. 

5.    The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

6.    The Panel took into account the fact that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing and confirmed that he would not be attending. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend. 

7.    The Panel noted that there was no suggestion that an adjournment would secure the Registrant’s attendance at a future hearing.

8.    The Panel considered that it was in the public interest to proceed with the hearing as scheduled; it noted that the Order is due to expire on 27 September 2026 and needs to be reviewed prior to expiry.

9.    In all the circumstances, the Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. 

Background

10.    The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Podiatrist. In 2021 he owned a Podiatry practice in Woodford Halse known as Foot Wise Podiatry, which he had operated as a single-handed practitioner for approximately 16 years.

11.    On 28 July 2021, Service User A, who was then 13 years of age, attended Foot Wise Podiatry with her mother, Person A. The reason the appointment was made was that Service User A had verrucae on her feet.

12.    On 30 July 2021, Person A made a referral to the HCPC complaining about the Registrant’s behaviour. The specific criticisms are reflected within the Allegation. 

13.    Person A wrote of the Registrant’s behaviour that he had an “unusually aggressive and disrespectful attitude towards my daughter. He did not give any attention to her feet choosing to bombard her with questions and berating her”.

14.    The Registrant was also found to have provided dietary advice to Service User A in an email following the appointment which was not clinically justified in light of their presenting complaint of verrucae.

15.    The previous panel concluded the following in respect of misconduct and impairment:

“The Panel began its deliberations by deciding whether there had been breaches of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.

The events being considered pre-dated the current version of those Standards, and so the Panel reviewed those that came into force in 2016, and which were still applicable in July 2021. The conclusion of the Panel was that the following Standards were breached by the Registrant:

•    Included in Standard 1, under the sub-heading, “Treat service users and carers with respect”, is Standard 1.1, which states, “You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.” The Registrant did not discharge this obligation with regard to Service User A.
•    Standard 2 requires registrants to communicate appropriately and effectively. Standard 2.1 requires registrants to be polite and considerate, and Standard 2.2 imposes the duty to listen to service users and to take account of their needs and wishes. The Panel’s findings in relation to Particulars 1(b), 1(c) and 3 necessarily involve a finding that the Registrant breached these Standards.
•    Standard 3 requires registrants to work within the limits of their knowledge and skills. In providing the dietary advice found proven by Particular 4, the Registrant breached that Standard.
•    Standard 6 requires registrants to manage risk, and this is further refined by Standard 6.1 which states, “You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.” The Panel’s findings on Particulars 2 and 3 mean that this Standard was breached.

As Standard 9 is headed, “Be honest and trustworthy”, the Panel considered that the Standards identified above were more appropriate to capture the Registrant’s failings than the Standard 9.1 urged by the Presenting Officer.

The Panel accepted the advice it received that a finding of misconduct should not automatically result from a finding that a Standard, or more than one Standard, had been breached. A Panel making a decision on misconduct is required to decide if any breaches established are of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant being categorised as misconduct.

Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel concluded that each of the proven particulars amounted to a serious failing. In particular:

•    The Registrant was not only speaking to a child, but to a child whom he came to recognise was nervous. On the findings of the Panel the words represented in Particulars 1(b) and 1(c) represented a serious departure from the manner in which he should have spoken to her.
•    The request that Service User A should remove her face mask, when there was no clinical need for that request, demonstrated that the Registrant was seeking to impose his own view over what must have been obvious to him was the wish of the child to keep it in place.
•    The Registrant was required to wear a face mask for reasons of health protection. This means that his failure to wear one created an obvious risk of harm to Service User A and Person A.
•    The proffering of unasked for, unnecessary and erroneous advice represents a serious shortcoming on the part of a registered health professional. The Registrant’s dietary advice was a serious breach of his professional obligations.

The conclusion of the Panel was that when viewed both individually and collectively the proven Particulars represented behaviour that was sufficiently serious for a finding that the misconduct threshold had been crossed…

Decision on Impairment

…With regard to the personal component, the Panel found it helpful to answer the questions suggested in paragraph 13 of the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Fitness to Practise Impairment”, the questions relevant to the present case being:

•    Whether the Registrant has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a service user at unwarranted risk of harm;
•    Whether the Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach a fundamental tenet of the profession;
•    Whether it is highly unlikely that the conduct will be repeated.

So far as past actions are concerned, the Panel’s conclusions were:

•    The Registrant’s actions in not himself wearing a face mask (Particular 2) and requesting Service User A to remove her mask (Particular 3) did put Service User A at unwarranted risk of harm;
•    Each of the proven particulars constituted breaches of at least one of the fundamental tenets of his profession for the reasons already expressed in explaining why Standards of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics were breached.

Before dealing with the question of whether the Registrant is liable to act in a similar way in the future, the relevance of the Registrant’s current professional status must be considered. He has been very clear in stating that he has discontinued his practice at Foot Wise Podiatry, and indeed has no future intention of practising as a Podiatrist. The Panel does not doubt the truth of either of these assertions, but it is a fundamental principle of professional regulation that a fitness to practise panel must determine what a person who continues to be registered is permitted to do. The Registrant remains on the HCPC Register, and the legislation governing this process dictates that he cannot remove himself from the Register while these fitness to practise proceedings remain extant. Accordingly, when a panel makes a decision, it must be assumed that a person who presently has no desire to exercise their right to practise might in the future change their mind about that. Accordingly, in answering the questions extracted from paragraph 13 of the Practice Note, the Panel is required to answer them on the assumption that the Registrant might in the future change his mind about returning to practise as a Podiatrist.

In reaching its decision, the Panel reviewed the documents provided by the Registrant. It is true that he has expressed regret for what occurred on 28 July 2021. Indeed, the very next day he sent an email to Person A in which he said he was sorry for any distress. However, any apology or expression of insight has to be viewed in the context in which it was expressed. The statement made in the email sent on 29 July 2021 was coupled with an assertion that Service User A’s distress arose as a result of the Registrant seeking to obtain informed consent. The Panel rejects that contention for the reason already given. The Registrant has apologised for not wearing a face mask and said that he would not repeat behaviour of that sort. However, if he has understood the reasons why his failure to wear one was a serious matter, he has not expressed that understanding. Furthermore, as recently as 10 days before the commencement of this hearing, the Registrant wrote an email in which he twice referred to Person A as an impatient mother. The Panel is of the clear view that Person A was not impatient; her intervention was occasioned by the fact that she could see that the Registrant’s behaviour was upsetting her child. Furthermore, in that same recent email, what the Registrant wrote about dietary matters suggests that he has not understood why the advice he gave was inappropriate. All of these factors strongly suggest that the Registrant has not developed the degree of understanding that would be needed for there to be confidence that he would not repeat behaviour of the type that has been found against him. In the judgement of the Panel, he is liable to repeat such behaviour.

This conclusion has the inevitable consequence that in respect of the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

The issues to be decided in relation to the public component are different, and in that regard the Panel heeded the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 to 35 inclusive of the Practice Note to which reference has already been made. Accordingly, the Panel addressed the following issues:

•    The need to protect service users;
•    Maintaining professional standards;
•    Maintaining public confidence.

The finding that, were he to return to practise as a Podiatrist, the Registrant would be liable to repeat behaviour of the sort experienced by Service User A means that there is a need to protect service users. The Panel acknowledges that Service User A did not suffer tangible harm as a result of her involvement with the Registrant. Nevertheless, service users attending Podiatrists are entitled to expect that they will be treated with consideration and politeness. Additionally, there is a risk that a service user who has a bad experience with a health professional will avoid seeking advice and treatment with a different professional, and that is a factor that gives rise to the risk of tangible harm to their health and well-being.

Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that even were there not the risk of repetition that there is in this case, it would nevertheless be necessary to reach a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise in order to reassure members of the public that behaviour of the sort involved in this case will not be ignored, and also to remind other registrants that if they act in that way, their behaviour will not be overlooked.

The conclusion of the Panel is that, for the reasons explained above, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired with regard to the public component.”

16.     The previous panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 6 months and stated the following in respect of the next review hearing:

“The Panel recognises that determinations often contain a list of suggested steps that a suspended registrant might take, and also of the evidence they might present to the reviewing panel. The Panel does not consider that to be appropriate in the present case. If the Registrant wishes to preserve his professional registration, he will be able to understand the areas he would need to address by a careful reading of this determination, identifying the reasons why the Panel found his fitness to practise to be impaired and the reasons why no lesser sanction than a Suspension Order was required.”

HCPC submissions

17.    The below is a summary of the HCPC’s submissions.

18.    Ms Sampson, on behalf of the HCPC, set out the background and procedural history of this case in detail.

19.    Ms Sampson submitted that it was the HCPC’s position that the Registrant remains impaired on the basis that there has been no material change since the imposition of the Suspension Order and the Registrant has not provided any of the information to address impairment and assist the current Panel. 

20.    Ms Sampson noted that the Registrant had been provided with the option to file a voluntary removal application. She submitted that a four-month extension to the current Suspension Order would be an appropriate and proportionate outcome. Ms Sampson noted that this was the first review of the Suspension Order and she submitted that the Panel may think that the Registrant should be given a further opportunity to carefully consider his next steps, particularly bearing in mind that the original finding arose from an isolated incident, which while serious was not considered to be at the higher end of seriousness. Ms Sampson noted that the Registrant confirmed that he has retired and no longer practises as a Podiatrist and this information was provided to the substantive panel. Ms Sampson noted that the HCPC sent the Registrant information about voluntary removal on 16 July 2026 and when the Registrant responded to HCPC communications on 24 July 2026, he did not discount the option of voluntary removal. 

21.    Ms Sampson therefore requested a four-month extension to allow the HCPC time to explore this option with the Registrant and to start the application process should he wish to pursue it. She submitted a longer extension would serve no useful purpose given that the Registrant has clearly indicated that he has retired and doesn’t intend to return to practise. Ms Sampson submitted, in the alternative, that if the Panel was not with her on her submissions, she would invite the Panel to highlight in its determination that, should the Registrant fail to engage with the HCPC, a Striking Off Order is likely to be considered.

22.    Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant remains impaired and the most proportionate and appropriate sanction was a four-month extension of the current Suspension Order to allow the voluntary removal application to be filed and then heard by a future panel.

The Registrant 

23.    The Panel took into account the email of 24 July 2026 from the Registrant in respect of today’s hearing. 

Decision

24.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful of its powers upon a review of the Suspension Order under the 2001 Order and had regard to the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Review of Article 30 Sanctions Orders’ and ‘Finding Impairment’, and the HCPC ‘Sanctions Policy’ (2 March 2026). The Panel’s task was to conduct an independent and comprehensive review of the current Order on the basis of the information available today. It must not seek to go behind the findings of the previous panels.

25.    The Panel must first decide whether it finds the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired by reason of his misconduct.

26.    The Panel noted that in accordance with the guidance in the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin), the persuasive burden to satisfy the Panel regarding the Registrant’s current fitness to practise at a review hearing falls upon the Registrant. The Panel further noted that if it found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired, then it should consider what steps to take in respect of the current Order in accordance with its powers under Article 30(1) of the 2001 Order. Any such Order must be appropriate and proportionate to protect the public as set out in the overarching objective and the three objectives subsumed under that: 

•    Protection of patients and the wider public, including colleagues;
•    Maintaining the essential trust and confidence held by the public in the profession;
•    Declaring and upholding standards for practitioners.

27.    In reaching its decision, the Panel carefully considered all of the documents provided to it in the substantive review hearing bundle and the submissions. The Panel noted that there was no new information before it in respect of the Registrant’s compliance with the Order and the Registrant has not sought to undertake any steps to assist this Panel with an understanding of his current insight and of any remediation of the attitudinal concerns found proved by the previous panel.

28.    In respect of the personal component of impairment, the Panel concluded that there was no evidence before it that the Registrant has taken any steps to address the concerns raised and/or implement strategies to ensure that the misconduct found proved is not repeated. The Panel considered that there was no evidence before it of the Registrant’s insight. The Registrant has not sought to address the Panel on the attitudinal concerns which it found proved and has addressed the Panel only in respect of his grievances with the HCPC’s regulatory process. He has not sought to show that he has developed any insight, remorse, or remediation.

29.    The Panel noted that the Registrant has confirmed he continues to consider himself retired from the profession. Further, it noted that he was informed by the HCPC of the option of voluntary removal on 16 July 2026. The Panel was of the view that the tone and content of the Registrant’s email of 24 July 2026 meant that it was reasonable to infer he would not wish to avail himself of this option.

30.    Given the Registrant’s lack of insight and remediation, the Panel concluded that there is a high risk of repetition of similar concerns if the Registrant were to continue to practise. The Registrant’s unresolved attitudinal issues raise a potential risk of harm to patients. The Panel concluded a finding of impairment is therefore required to protect the public against the risk of repetition.

31.    Turning to the public component of impairment, the Panel determined that the public would be concerned that the Registrant’s attitudinal concerns remain unresolved and that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the personal component and the public component.

32.    The Panel applied the guidance in the Sanctions Policy and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of its powers in respect of sanction. The Panel is aware that the primary function of any sanction is to address public safety. The Panel should also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes maintaining confidence in the profession and setting the proper professional standards.

33.    The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and balanced the Registrant’s interests against the public interest. The Panel noted that the sanction should be the least restrictive which is sufficient to provide the necessary degree of public protection.

34.    The Panel considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s attitudinal concerns are of a nature and gravity that the option of taking no action would be insufficient to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

35.    The Panel considered imposing a Caution Order but decided that it would provide insufficient protection to the public. The Registrant has not demonstrated any steps to address the attitudinal concerns or demonstrate insight into his conduct since the substantive hearing, and the Panel has found that there is a high risk of repetition. A Caution Order would not restrict the Registrant’s practice and would not therefore provide sufficient protection for the public.

36.    The Panel next considered the option of a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel concluded that conditions of practice would not be appropriate because the Registrant has not engaged with the hearing process and has not provided evidence of his commitment to resolve his attitudinal concerns. There is no evidence before the Panel that the Registrant would comply with conditions of practice. The Registrant has maintained that he is retired from the profession and does not intend to return. As such, the Panel considered that any conditions it formulated would not be workable. Further, the Panel did not consider that conditions of practice would adequately protect the public, given the unresolved attitudinal concerns raised in this case. 

37.    Given the current absence of any evidence of remedial steps or insight, the Panel went on to consider a Suspension Order and the submissions of the HCPC that a short Suspension Order of four months should be imposed to allow the Registrant to consider the voluntary removal process. The Panel noted that to undertake voluntary removal, a registrant must admit to the substance of the allegations made against them. The Panel noted the representations from the Registrant, in which he makes clear that he does not accept the findings of the previous panel. The Panel considered in this regard his position had become more entrenched since the substantive hearing. The Panel therefore considered that it was highly unlikely that the Registrant would meet the criteria for voluntary removal. The Panel therefore considered that suspending the Registrant for a short period to allow this process to be explored would be ineffective.

38.    In relation to a Suspension Order, the Panel took into account the guidance within section 170 of the Sanctions Policy, which states that such an order would be appropriate in the following situations:

“• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; or 
• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings particularly in cases where the registrant has demonstrated they have begun to do so or given a credible explanation for how they will do so.”

39.    The Panel considered that the Registrant had shown no insight and there was nothing to support a finding that the risk of repetition had been addressed. Further, there was nothing to demonstrate that the Registrant would resolve those failings, given his indication that he has no intention of returning to practice.

40.    The Registrant has clearly stated that he no longer wishes to practise. He has stated he wants to remain retired. Therefore, the Panel considered that imposing a Suspension Order for a further short period to explore voluntary removal would not be in the Registrant’s own interests. Additionally, to continue with this Article 30 review process would incur more expense to the public and it is not in the public’s interest.

41.    In relation to the imposition of a Striking Off Order, the Panel took into account the terms of paragraph 180 of that guidance which states that it is appropriate in situations where the registrant lacks insight and there is no willingness to resolve the issues. In the Panel’s view, this is the position in this case.

42.    The Panel therefore disagreed with the HCPC’s position that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a short suspension to explore voluntary removal. The Panel considered the most appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off Order. Such an Order will permanently remove the Registrant’s name from the HCPC Register.

43.    Finally, the Panel wished to record that whilst its decision today reflects the Registrant’s current views, there may come a day when those views change. The Registrant should therefore be aware that if, in five years’ time, he is able to provide the HCPC with evidence that he has addressed the attitudinal concerns and reflected upon the impact his behaviour had on others, he may wish to produce evidence that he is, subject to further training, fit to return to the profession.

44.    The Order imposed today will apply from 27 September 2026.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Gary J Denby from the Register on the expiry of the existing Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 27 September 2026.

History of Hearings for Gary J Denby