Juan P Saunar

Preliminary Matters
Amendments

9. At the start of the hearing, Ms Mosley applied to the Panel to amend Particular 10 of the Allegation (which had already been amended in accordance with the High Court consent order) to include the Allegation that the matters proved at Particular 8 were sexual and or sexually motivated and or harassment.

10. Ms Mosley submitted that the amendment was necessary to reflect the evidence and the matters that had been found proved. The Registrant did not oppose the amendment.

11. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it has followed in the decision set out below.

12. The Panel acknowledged that there is no specific provision in The Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules) dealing with amendment but accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that it has the power to amend if such amendment is necessary to protect the public and can be made without injustice to the Registrant.

13. The Panel had regard to all the evidence in the case, and in particular the written admissions which the Registrant had sent to the Panel in advance of the hearing. The Panel was satisfied that the amendment could be made without injustice and was consistent with the broad admissions which the Registrant had made.

14. Accordingly, the Panel allowed the amendment.

15. The Panel also heard an application by the Registrant to amend Particulars 10 and 11 of the Allegation to reflect the fact that Particular 4 had been found not proved at the original hearing.

16. The Panel again received advice from the Legal Assessor. The Panel was satisfied that the amendment was necessary to correct an obvious mistake and could be made without risk of injustice because it was wholly in the Registrant’s interests.

17. Accordingly, the Panel allowed both amendments, which are shown in red in the amended Allegation set out above.


Procedure adopted at the hearing

18. The Chair read the amended Allegation to the Registrant.

19. The Chair first read particulars 1 to 7 and announced that these had been proved at the October 2024 hearing of this case and had been left “undisturbed” as a result of the High Court Consent Order.

20. The Chair then read particulars 8 and 9 to the Registrant and asked if he wished to make any admissions. The Registrant said that he wished to admit both particulars in their entirety.

21. The Chair then caused amended Particular 10 to be read to the Registrant, one sub particular at a time so that it would be clear what, if any, admissions the Registrant wished to make in respect of whether the matters found proved at particulars 1 to 8 were either sexual, sexually motivated, or amounted to harassment.

22. As a result of this process, the Registrant made admissions to Particular 8 and these are set out in a table marked Annex B to this decision.

23. The Chair read Particular 11 to the Registrant and he made full admissions that the matters set out in that particular amounted to misconduct.

24. The Chair also read Particular 12 to the Registrant and he indicated that he accepted that his fitness to practise was impaired.

25. It was explained to the Registrant that, in respect of Particulars 11 and 12, the questions of misconduct and impairment were a matter for the Panel, but his admissions would be noted.

Advice

26. The Panel then heard advice from the Legal Assessor regarding the approach it should take to the admissions the Registrant made in respect of Particular 10.

27. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that the High Court Consent Order had envisaged that the Registrant would be invited to indicate whether he admitted that the matters proved against him were sexual and/or sexually motivated and/or amounted to harassment.

28. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that all three terms were correctly defined in the HCPC submissions as follows.

29. When deciding whether conduct was sexual. The Panel was likely to be assisted by considering the test set out in Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
… penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual."

30. A finding that conduct was sexual does not depend upon a finding regarding the Registrant's state of mind.

31. Sexual motivation relates to the Registrant’s state of mind. Conduct will be sexually motivated if it was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship, as per Basson v GMC (2018) EWHC 505 (Admin).

32. Harassment is defined by Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 as follows:
“(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(2) A also harasses B if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b)…
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.”

33. The Legal Assessor also drew the Panel's attention to the HCPTS practice note on admissions dated January 2026.

34. He reminded the Panel that the HCPTS rules do not provide for facts to be proved by admission but it is now accepted that Panels can find facts proved by way of admission if the Panel is satisfied that it is fair to do so in all the circumstances.

35. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that it must be satisfied that any admissions are unequivocal and, where a Registrant admits an inference drawn from the facts, such as sexual motivation, the Panel must be satisfied that he understands what he is admitting.

36. The Legal Assessor advised that the practice note itself points to the role of the Legal Assessor meeting with the Registrant and ensuring that he understands the position. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that he had spent over an hour with the Registrant and the Presenting Officer explaining matters and going through the definitions set out above.

The Panel’s decision

37. The Panel approached the admissions with caution, bearing in mind that the Registrant is not represented at this hearing. It also bore in mind the procedural history of this matter, in particular, that particulars 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 had been proved at a previous hearing, and the Registrant had consented to a High Court order that particulars 1 to 7 should not be disturbed.

38. The Panel also had regard to the Registrant's bundle and in particular, the passages in his reflective piece where he said, “I wish to make it clear from the outset that I fully accept the factual basis of the Allegations before this Panel and accept that my conduct amounted to misconduct…I do not seek to challenge, revisit, minimise, or re-litigate any aspect of my conduct or the matters before the Panel.” “My conduct included: repeatedly failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries; making inappropriate personal comments to colleagues; engaging in unwanted physical contact with a colleague;’ behaving in ways that were sexually motivated in relation to certain Allegations; later attempting to influence a witness.”

39. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's admissions, both to particulars 8 and 9 and the matters set out in particular 10, were consistent with the written submissions he had made before the hearing. It also accepted that he had told the Legal Assessor that he had received advice.

40. The Panel also examined the admissions to ensure that they were sufficient to enable the Panel to properly reflect what the Registrant had done.

41. Having regard to the matters set out above, the Panel was satisfied both that the Registrant understood the admissions that he was making and made them unequivocally. It was also satisfied that the admissions were sufficient to enable the Panel to protect the public in this case.

42. Accordingly, the Panel decided that Particulars 8, 9, and 10 were proved by way of admission. For ease of reference, the Panel caused the admissions made by the Registrant in respect of Particular 10 to be recorded in tabular form and annexed to this decision as Annex B.

43. The Panel is satisfied that, in these circumstances, the background to this case and the findings of fact made at stage 1 are properly set out in the decision of the October 2024 Panel. The Panel has caused the relevant passages from the decision to be copied and annexed to this decision as Annex A.

Decision on Grounds and impairment

44. Having found particulars 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 proved as set out above, the Panel went on to consider whether the matters found proved amounted to serious misconduct and, if so, whether the Registrant’s fitness to practice is currently impaired.
Submissions and evidence

Submissions on behalf of the HCPC

45. The Panel received written and oral submissions from Ms Mosley. She submitted that the matters proved, taken individually and together, amounted to serious misconduct. Ms Mosley set out the relevant law which the Panel sets out in detail in its approach and decision.

46. Ms Mosley also took the Panel to The HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics of January 2016 (‘the Standards’), and in particular, Standards 2.5 and 9.1, to which the Panel also refers in its decision.

47. With regard to impairment, Ms Mosley reminded the Panel of the HCPC Practice Note of January 2026 and invited the Panel to consider impairment under both the personal and public components.

48. With regard to the personal component, Ms Mosley acknowledged that the Registrant had engaged fully in these proceedings and with the HCPC investigation. She also acknowledged that he had provided testimonial evidence, including from his current employer, and that all these documents portray him in a positive light. She also acknowledged that there has been no suggestion of a further occurrence of misconduct since the beginning of 2020. Ms Mosley submitted that the Registrant had accepted responsibility for his actions and demonstrated what she described as "some insight into his behaviour".

49. Nevertheless, she submitted that the personal component of impairment remains engaged because of the seriousness of what the Registrant had done and the difficulty in remediating something which she submitted, demonstrated an attitudinal issue.

50. Turning to the public component of impairment, Ms Mosley submitted that a finding of impairment was necessary, in the wider public interest to promote and maintain public confidence in radiographers and promote and maintain standards of conduct for the profession.

51. She submitted that conduct such as that engaged in by the Registrant was likely to have an adverse effect not only on the individuals to whom it was directed, but on the collaborative and collegial culture that is the foundation for the provision of safe and effective care. She acknowledged that there was no evidence of direct harm caused to patients or service users, but submitted that his conduct had given rise to an unacceptable risk. She also reminded the Panel of the findings made regarding the impact of the misconduct on the victims in this case.

Evidence on behalf of the Registrant

52. The Registrant gave evidence and placed a number of documents before the Panel.

53. The Panel observed that the documents were as follows:

a. A reflective piece entitled "written submissions." In this document, the Registrant said that, “I fully accept the factual basis of the allegations before this Panel and accept that my conduct amounted to misconduct. I am not seeking to dispute, minimise, or relitigate the matters before the Panel. I acknowledge that my conduct fell significantly below the standards expected of a registered Radiographer and that it had the potential to undermine trust within the workplace, affect colleagues, damage confidence in the profession, and bring the profession into disrepute.”
b. He acknowledged that his conduct was entirely his responsibility and explained that he had reflected over the last six years. He further acknowledged that whatever his intention at the time, he had failed to recognise that he had crossed professional boundaries and failed to “to appreciate that behaviour which may have seemed harmless from my own perspective could nevertheless be unwanted, inappropriate, intimidating, embarrassing, or distressing to another person.”
c. He added that he was ashamed of conduct which had made colleagues “feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, anxious, or distressed.” He described his pain at reading the descriptions of his former colleagues.
d. He also set out his understanding of how his conduct affected the dynamics of the team and undermined it.
e. He specifically acknowledged how wrong he had been to approach Colleague 4 to make a statement. He acknowledged that he had put unfair pressure on her and "risked undermining the integrity of the regulatory process."
f. He acknowledged that he had disengaged from the regulatory process in 2024, for personal reasons and because he had become "emotionally overwhelmed". He described his renewed commitment to engaging, and hoped this was demonstrated by the material he had put before the Panel.
g. He also drew attention to the work he has done since, where he has demonstrated his insight and understanding for several years.

54. The Panel also read four testimonials from people with whom the Registrant had worked for, first in the Philippines and then as a “radiographer assistant” in Australia. They included the Clinical Director at Pinnacle Medical Imaging, a female colleague radiographer who had worked with the Registrant for several months and the Human Resources Officer and the Operations Manager at a Medical Centre in the Philippines.

55. All the testimonials spoke highly of the Registrant, including his professional conduct. The Panel read the testimonial of the clinical director at Pinnacle. He made it clear in his testimonial that the Registrant had provided Pinnacle with "full disclosure regarding his deregistration of practise in the UK". He added that the Registrant had been "transparent regarding his history and has demonstrated insight, maturity, and genuine commitment to rebuilding his professional career." He concluded that “Based on his performance and conduct within our organisation, we would have no hesitation in recommending Juan as a person of good character who deserves the opportunity to continue pursuing his professional development.”

56. The Panel also read a testimonial from the Operations Manager at Pinnacle Medical Imaging, who again stated that he was "aware of the circumstances around the HCPC suspension of Juan's" Radiographer's licence in the UK” He stated that he believed that the Registrant "has shown true remorse for his previous action." He has acknowledged his missteps, and the effect his actions have had on all parties. I can confidently say he has learnt from this experience and worked on himself to improve his character.” He described the Registrant as being “trustworthy and considerate, and has exemplified respect and empathy in his interactions with others.”

57. The Panel also had regard to a number of CPD certificates, including "Understanding and preventing sexual harassment". The certificate dated 25 January 2025 described the Registrant as having "successfully completed the course".

58. The Registrant gave oral evidence to the Panel and answered questions. He confirmed that everything in his written submissions was true and repeated his understanding that what he had done was wrong and had affected his colleagues, the wider team, and public confidence in the profession.

59. He repeated his acknowledgement that contacting Colleague 4 about her statement was wrong. He said that he would always regret what he had done in 2019. He hoped to demonstrate through his actions every day that he had learned from his mistakes and had become "a different professional because of them."

60. He confirmed that he had worked since 2020. He had first worked in the UK in a senior position that he explained to the Panel, until he left to return to the Philippines in 2024. He confirmed that he had revealed his regulatory situation with the company Pinnacle in Australia, and they had agreed to employ him as a radiographer assistant, which did not require him to have registration.

61. In answer to questions from members of the Panel, he said that if he saw conduct such as his being carried out by another colleague, he would intervene and speak to that colleague and explain to them the need to behave in a way that showed respect and made colleagues feel safe.

62. He also confirmed in answer to questions from the Chair that he understood that his behaviour had affected not only individual colleagues, but the work environment, and that he had created an unsafe environment. He reminded the Panel how differently he had behaved in the six years since 2020.

Submissions by the Registrant

63. In his oral submissions, the Registrant acknowledged that what he had done amounted to serious misconduct. With regard to impairment, he submitted that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired. With regard to the personal component, he submitted that he had demonstrated over six years that there was no longer a risk that he would repeat his misconduct. Turning to the public component of impairment, the Registrant recognised the seriousness of his misconduct and the importance of maintaining professional standards and public confidence. Nevertheless, he submitted that his accountability, sustained change, and evidence over six years demonstrate that a finding of current impairment is no longer required.

64. The Panel received the advice of the Legal Assessor which it followed in its decision set out below.

The Panel’s approach to misconduct

65. The Panel reminded itself that this stage of the proceedings is itself a two-stage process. The Panel must first decide whether the matters found proved amount to serious misconduct and if it concludes that they do, it must go on to consider whether the Registrant 's fitness to practise is currently impaired.

66. The Panel reminded itself that both misconduct and impairment are matters for the Panel’s independent judgment.

67. Turning to the question of misconduct the Panel reminded itself of the case of Roylance v GMC (No.2) [2000] 1 AC 311, para 38 in which the court stated that ‘misconduct’ was:
“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…in the Particular circumstances…And such falling short must be serious.”

68. In deciding whether misconduct is serious, the Panel followed the approach set out in Solicitors Regulation Authority v. Day and others [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin) which gave the following guidance to Panels: “We do not, we emphasise, say that there is a set standard of seriousness or culpability for the purposes of assessing breaches of the core principles in tribunal proceedings. It is a question of fact and degree in each case. Whether the default in question is sufficiently serious and culpable thus will depend on the Particular core principle in issue and on the evaluation of the circumstances of the Particular case as applied to that principle.”

69. The Panel also had regard to the Standards as set out in the Panel’s decision.
The Panel’s decision on misconduct.

70. The Panel was satisfied that the matters proved in this case, taken individually and together, amount to serious misconduct.

71. The Panel accepted Ms Mosley's submission that the following standards of the Standards were engaged:

Standard 2.5- You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience and where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.
Standard 9.1- You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public's trust and confidence in you and your profession.

72. The Panel reminded itself that it set out in Annex B, in respect of each particular and sub particular, that the Registrant’s conduct amounted to the harassment of 3 colleagues, on the basis of sex, by words and actions that were variously sexual or sexually motivated.

73. With regard to Colleague 4, the Panel reminded itself that that the Registrant touched her buttocks and her hips and attempted to kiss her, in circumstances where this was unwelcome. He had also put pressure on her regarding the statement she would make to the regulatory proceedings. The Panel also reminded itself that the Registrant's conduct resulted in Colleague 4 being so upset that she had to leave a training course early. The Panel is satisfied that all these matters amount to serious misconduct.

74. With regard to Colleague 5 (a student radiographer) the Panel reminded itself that the Registrant's conduct (including comments about her makeup and whether she had a boyfriend) had extended from October until December 2019, despite a number of warnings that his conduct was inappropriate. Again, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant's misconduct amounts to a course of conduct over a significant period of time which amounts to serious misconduct.

75. With regard to Colleague 1, the Panel again reminded itself of the findings at stage 1, that the Registrant's conduct amounted to a course of conduct that lasted from October to December 2019, pressuring her to accept gifts of flowers and food and making explicit comments about her breasts, accompanied by lewd gestures. The Panel also reminded itself of the evidence that these matters had made Colleague 1 reluctant to come to work.

76. The Panel acknowledged that there was no evidence of direct harm to patients or service users. Nevertheless, it had no doubt that the Registrants' conduct gave rise to a significant risk because of the disruption he caused to the working environment.

The Panel’s approach to impairment

77. Turning to the question of whether the Registrant ’s fitness to practise is currently impaired the Panel kept at the forefront of its mind that it is concerned with current impairment and that may be of great significance where more than six years have passed since the misconduct was committed and there is a significant body of evidence that the Registrant has used the time well.

78. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on impairment dated August 2025.

79. It observed that the Practice Note reminds Panels that Fitness to practise is not defined in the Health Professions Order 2001, but it is generally accepted to mean that a Registrant has the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively.

80. The Panel adopted the following approach. The Panel had regard to the over-arching objective of protecting the public, which involves the pursuit of the following objectives:
• to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public;
• to promote and maintain public confidence in the professions regulated under the Order; and
• to promote and maintain proper professional standards of conduct for members of those professions.

81. It also bore in mind that in deciding whether the Registrant ’s fitness to practise is still impaired, it should follow the approach of Dame Janet Smith endorsed by the High Court in CHRE v NMC and P Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin):
"Do our findings of fact in respect of the (Registrant ’s) misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/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”.

82. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note which directs Panels to look at both the personal and public components of impairment of fitness to practise, starting with the personal component. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

83. Accordingly, the Panel looked at the personal component first and reminded itself of the key questions which need to be answered:
i. are the acts or omissions which led to the allegation remediable?
ii. has the Registrant taken remedial action?
iii. are those acts or omissions likely to be repeated?

84. The Panel bore in mind that an important factor will be the Registrant ’s insight into those acts or omissions, the extent to which the Registrant:
• understands how and why it occurred and its consequences for those affected; and
• can demonstrate they have taken action to address that failure in a manner which remedies any past harm (where that is possible) and avoids any future repetition.

85. The Panel also bore in mind the public component of impairment which encompasses the second and third limbs of the overarching objective, namely promoting and maintaining public confidence in the profession and promoting and maintaining proper professional standards of conduct for the profession.

Decision on Impairment

86. For the avoidance of any doubt or misunderstanding, the Panel observed that in the revised Notice of Allegation, paragraph 12 (which repeats that the Registrant's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of the matters proved between paragraphs 1 and 11) was not reproduced.

87. The Panel was satisfied that all parties had proceeded on the basis of the opening line of the Allegation to the effect that the Registrant's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of the matter set out below.

88. The Panel was satisfied that both the HCPC and the Registrant had prepared submissions on the basis that they had to deal with the issue of impairment and that, what the Panel was satisfied was a typographical error, had had no effect upon the conduct or fairness of the proceedings.

89. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's conduct in relation to his colleagues had brought the profession of Radiography into disrepute.

90. The Panel has already acknowledged that there is no evidence that a patient or service user was put at actual risk of harm. However, it reminded itself that it has already concluded that the Registrant's misconduct gave rise to an unacceptable risk of such harm by undermining the team in which he worked.

91. Turning to the personal component of impairment, the Panel examined whether the misconduct was remediable and to what extent the Registrant had remediated in the last six years.

92. The Panel had particular regard to the Registrant's reflections, evidence of his insight and the independent evidence of his conduct, both in England, the Philippines, and Australia between 2020 and 2026.

93. The Panel has set out the oral and documentary evidence in some detail so that the basis of its decision is clear. The Panel had an opportunity to not only read evidence but listen to the Registrant giving evidence and answering questions. It formed the view that his evidence was truthful, not merely because of his demeanour (which the Panel approached with caution), but because his evidence was consistent with the evidence of the views of those with whom he has worked and who are aware of what he has done and supported by the study that he has undertaken. The Panel was satisfied that it was also consistent with the evidence that there had been no suggestion of repetition of similar misconduct during his work, either in the UK, the Philippines, or Australia, over a period of six years.

94. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant's misconduct was persistent, over two or three months, and continued despite warnings. To that extent, it reflected an attitudinal problem which would be hard to remediate. It also reminded itself that the mere passage of time is not evidence of remediation in itself.

95. Nevertheless, the Panel concluded that in six years, the Registrant has made far greater progress than one would have imagined possible in 2020. The Panel has concluded that this is borne out by the Registrant's own evidence and the independent supporting evidence that he has adduced, including evidence of his good conduct at work.

96. For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that there is no longer a significant risk that the Registrant will repeat the misconduct. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the personal component of impairment is no longer engaged.

97. The Panel then considered whether a finding of impairment was necessary to uphold proper standards for the profession and promote and maintain public confidence in the profession.

98. The Panel had careful regard to the Registrant's submission that a finding was no longer necessary because an informed member of the public would be satisfied by the steps that he had taken, and their confidence would be maintained by knowing that the matter had been properly examined and marked by a regulatory process.

99. Nevertheless, the Panel concluded that the Registrant's misconduct was so serious and risked to such an extent undermining public confidence, including the confidence of female colleagues that a finding of impairment is necessary to demonstrate that this conduct is wholly unacceptable and has no place in the profession and the workplace.

100. The Panel concluded that any other decision would undermine public confidence in the profession by giving the impression that the Panel, and hence the Regulator, did not take the Registrant's misconduct sufficiently seriously.

101. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant's fitness to practise is currently impaired under the public component alone.

Decision on Sanction

102. Having found the Registrant’s fitness to practise impaired, for the reasons set out above, the Panel considered, what, if any sanction it should impose on the Registrant.

Submissions and advice

103. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Mosley who drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Sanctions Policy (dated 2 March 2026) (‘The Policy’) which sets out the principles that Panels should consider when deciding what, if any, sanction should be imposed in fitness to practice cases.

104. She reminded the Panel that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish a Registrant, but to protect the public, including the wider public interest.

105. Ms Mosley acknowledged that the following mitigating factors were present in this case:
a. The Registrant has no previous fitness to practise findings against him;
b. At this hearing, the Registrant made full admissions;
c. The Registrant has demonstrated “Some level of insight into his behaviour’ and shown remorse for his actions”;
d. The Registrant has put before the Panel positive testimonials from employers.

106. Ms. Mosley submitted that the following aggravating factors applied in this case:
a. The Registrant's behaviour amounted to a pattern of behaviour, which continued despite warnings that his actions were unwanted;
b. The Registrant's misconduct directly affected three colleagues.

107. Ms. Mosley reminded the Panel that the Registrant's misconduct fell within four areas that have been identified in the Policy as being particularly serious and requiring a “serious” sanction. These include:
i. Discrimination against colleagues;
ii. Breach of professional boundaries;
iii. Vulnerability; and
iv. Conduct which is sexual in nature or sexually motivated.

108. The Registrant made oral and written submissions.

109. He acknowledged the seriousness of the misconduct in this case and repeated that he did not seek to go behind the Panel's findings.

110. He submitted that the Panel should balance his misconduct against his conduct since, including his developed insight and remediation. He reminded the Panel of the finding they had already made that the risk of repetition of his misconduct is low.

111. He invited the Panel to consider a caution order. He drew the Panel's attention to paragraph 147 of the guidance. He acknowledged that his misconduct was not "isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature." Nevertheless, he submitted the other three factors in paragraph 147 were engaged, namely that there was a low risk of repetition, the Registrant had shown good insight, and the Registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

112. The Registrant invited the Panel to consider whether a conditions of practise order was appropriate in this case and assured the Panel that he was willing to work constructively with an employer, to ensure that any conditions imposed were properly implemented and monitored.

113. The Registrant acknowledged that the Panel may have to consider suspension and invited the Panel to take into account the "substantial period during which I have already effectively been prevented from practising as an HCPC registered radiographer as a consequence of this case."

114. He acknowledged the importance of maintaining public confidence in the profession. And submitted that public confidence requires a proportionate regulatory response, which considers not only what a Registrant did historically but the evidence concerning that Registrant's current position.

115. He concluded that he was not asking the Panel to minimise what he did, but to impose a sanction which reflected not only what he did but the progress he has made since then.

The Panel’s approach to sanction

116. The Panel reminded itself that sanctions are not intended to punish Registrants, but to ensure the public is protected and maintain standards and confidence in the profession. Inevitably, a sanction may be punitive in effect but should not be imposed for that purpose.

117. Accordingly, the Panel must have regard to:
• any risks the Registrant might pose to those who use or need their services;
• the deterrent effect on other Registrants;
• public confidence in the profession we regulate; and
• public confidence in the regulatory process.

118. The Panel also had regard to the principle of proportionality, which is set out in paragraph 24 of Sanctions Policy in the following terms: “In making proportionate decisions on sanctions, Panels need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the Registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public. Furthermore, there is a public interest in retaining Registrants on the Register and allowing them to practise, but only where the Panel is satisfied that they can do so safely without restriction (or with conditions where required) and where the public interest does not require a Registrant to be suspended or struck off.”

119. The Panel reminded itself that it must have careful regard to the Registrant's culpability, the seriousness of his misconduct and evidence of insight, remediation, remorse, and apology.

120. The Panel reminded itself that the correct approach to selecting the appropriate and proportionate sanction is to start with the least restrictive sanction and consider each sanction in turn until it finds a sanction that is sufficient to satisfy the purpose of imposing a sanction.

The Panel’s decision on sanction.

121. The Panel observed that the position of this Panel is very different to that faced by the Panel in October 2024, as identified in the High Court Consent Order.

122. The High Court order identified that the Registrant had not given evidence to the previous panel, so that panel had no evidence as to his prior insight into his misconduct. Nor was there any evidence of steps taken by the Registrant to reduce the risk of repetition.

123. The Panel has already identified the evidence given by the Registrant and the independent evidence which supports it. Accordingly, the Panel considered the position as it is today, in light of the evidence it has heard.

124. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:
a. Evidence of the Registrant's insight. The Panel found that this was evidenced not only by what he said but by the admissions he made before and at this hearing;
i. The Panel however acknowledged that the Registrant's insight was slow to develop at the outset of the HCPC concerns.
b. Evidence that the Registrant had taken steps to remediate his conduct, both by appropriate study and by improving his working practice;
i. The Panel reminded itself that this was supported by independent evidence submitted by the Registrant such as recent testimonials from superior colleagues and CPD certificates;
c. The remorse which the Registrant expressed both orally and in his written submissions, was accepted as genuine by the Panel;
d. The evidence that the Registrant had worked for six years since this misconduct, including four years in the United Kingdom, without any repetition of similar misconduct.

125. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
a. The Registrant's misconduct amounted to a pattern of behaviour which lasted at least three months and involved three colleagues.
b. The Registrant's misconduct persisted despite warnings.
c. One of the colleagues was a student and therefore vulnerable.
d. The Registrant's misconduct extended beyond the sexual harassment of three colleagues and included improperly interfering in the HCPC investigation.
e. The Registrants' misconduct gave rise to a real risk of undermining the care provided to patients.

126. The Panel also found that the Registrant's misconduct, including sexual harassment fell into those areas which the Policy has identified as particularly serious, likely to undermine public confidence in the profession and require a serious sanction.

127. The Panel concluded that the misconduct in this case was serious and the aggravating features outweighed the mitigating features so that a serious sanction was inevitable.

128. The Panel found that to arrive at the correct sanction, it had to balance the seriousness of the Registrant's misconduct against the significant body of evidence that the Registrant had developed insight and taken significant steps to remediate.

129. The Panel has dealt with this evidence of insight and remediation above but thinks it appropriate to summarise some of that evidence here so that it can be readily available to someone seeking to understand the Panel's decision on sanction.

130. The Registrant told the Panel that he understood that his behaviour was " unwanted, inappropriate, intimidating, embarrassing, or distressing to another person.”

131. The Registrant expressed his shame for what he had done and expressed his understanding that the effect of what he had done was much wider than its effect on his colleagues.
“I am particularly ashamed that my conduct caused colleagues to feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, anxious or distressed. Every healthcare professional has the right to work in an environment where they feel respected, psychologically safe, and free from unwanted personal attention or conduct that compromises their dignity. I now recognise that my behaviour had the potential to undermine trust within the workplace, damage working relationships, affect team cohesion, and negatively impact the supportive professional environment that healthcare organisations strive to maintain.”

132. The Registrant apologised to his colleagues in this hearing.

133. The Registrant provided independent evidence that his behaviour at work had changed completely.

134. Against this background, the Panel considered each of the available sanctions in turn.

135. The Panel first considered taking no action. It concluded that this would not be appropriate in light of the findings it had already made about the seriousness of the misconduct in this case.

136. The Panel then considered whether it was appropriate to impose a caution order.

137. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 146 to 149 of the Sanctions Policy.

146. A caution order is a non-restrictive sanction that will appear on the Register but will not restrict a Registrant’s ability to practise. The caution order can be imposed for any period between one and five years. An order of this sort may be taken into account if a further allegation is made against the Registrant….
When is a caution order appropriate?

147. A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the Registrant has shown good insight; and
• the Registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.
148. A caution order should be considered in cases where the nature of the allegations means that there is no risk to public protection that has to be addressed by a more restrictive sanction or that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a suspension order would be disproportionate.
149. In these cases, Panels should provide a clear explanation of why it has chosen a non-restrictive sanction, even though the Panel may have found there to be a risk (albeit low) of repetition.

138. Having considered all these factors and, in particular, balanced the seriousness of the Registrant's misconduct against the matters of insight, remediation and the risk of repetition, the Panel concluded that a caution order was not a sufficiently restrictive sanction to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct in this case was simply too serious to be dealt with by the way of a caution order.

139. The Panel then considered whether a conditions of practice order would be appropriate.

140. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 152 to 156 of the Policy:
When is a conditions of practice order appropriate?
153. A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:
• the Registrant has insight;
• the concerns are capable of being remedied or managed;
• there are no persistent or general concerns which would prevent the Registrant from remediating;
• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the Panel is confident the Registrant will comply with the conditions;
• a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met; and
• a Panel is satisfied that a Registrant may continue to practise with conditions without exposing the public to risk of harm.

141. The Panel also had regard to paragraph 155, which provides that Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving (among other matters):
• Failure to work in partnership;
• Discrimination against… colleagues;
• Conduct which represents a serious breach of professional boundaries;
• Abuse of professional position;
• Conduct which is sexual in nature or sexually motivated.

142. The Panel reminded itself that the purpose of a sanction in this case is to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards of conduct. It concluded that a Conditions of Practise order would be insufficient to achieve that end.

143. The Panel then considered a suspension order.

144. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 169 and 170 , which provides that:

169. A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the Registrant to be struck off the Register.
170. Where a Panel is considering suspension orders, it should first consider whether the conduct found proven indicated behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. Examples of such cases are given in paragraph 179. It may still be necessary to impose a striking off order if public protection and/or the wider public interest considerations require it. If that is the case, the Panel should not impose a suspension order, even where some or all of the factors listed below are present (this list is non-exhaustive):
• 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.

145. The Panel was satisfied that the misconduct in this case is sufficiently serious to warrant a suspension order and it has already made findings that the Registrant has insight and is unlikely to repeat his misconduct.

146. Nevertheless, the Panel considered whether the Registrants' misconduct was "fundamentally incompatible with continued registration."

147. The Panel reminded itself of the provisions of paragraph 179 of the Policy which provides that a striking off order will be appropriate for serious, persistent or deliberate acts, which may include the areas of misconduct already identified by the Panel, including serious breaches of professional boundaries., Abuse of professional position and conduct which is sexual in nature or sexually motivated.

148. The Panel also had regard to paragraph 180 which provides that
a. 180. A striking off order is likely to be appropriate, whether or not the conduct is included in the examples of such conduct in the list above, where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. Some examples of such conduct include (this list is not exhaustive), where the Registrant:
• lacks insight;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a Registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence (for example, due to not attempting to engage with any remediation); or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.

149. The Panel also accepted the advice it had been given that not all matters of sexual misconduct within the workplace automatically result in striking off. The Panel must look at all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether a striking off order is necessary.

150. The Panel concluded that the misconduct in this case fell into the category of misconduct which would have been fundamentally incompatible with continued registration if the Registrant had lacked insight, continued to repeat the misconduct, and had been unwilling to resolve matters.

151. However, in this case, where the Panel has made clear findings that the Registrant has developed insight, has not repeated his misconduct for a number of years, and has shown a conspicuous willingness to resolve matters, in a way that has impressed his current employers, the Panel should balance the misconduct and all that the Registrant has done since.

152. After carrying out that exercise, the Panel concluded that it was possible and appropriate to impose an order that did not result in the Registrant being struck off in light of his subsequent conduct over a significant number of years.

153. Accordingly, the Panel decided to impose a suspension order.

154. The Panel then considered how long that order should be. The Panel wishes it to be clear that its starting point was a period of 12 months in order to emphasise to the Registrant and the public that it was only because of the insight the Registrant has developed and demonstrated by his reflection, conduct at work, and admissions before the Panel that the Panel has concluded that a suspension order rather than a striking off order is sufficient to satisfy the wider public interest.

155. The Panel heard that the Registrant had been suspended for a total of 14 months before this hearing as a result of the original order made in October 2024, until the order was quashed in December 2025.

156. To be fair to the Registrant in all the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was appropriate to reduce the period of his suspension by one months to a period of eleven months' suspension.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of JUAN P SAUNAR for a period of 11 months from the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. After the Panel announced its decision on sanction, Ms Mosley applied for an interim order to cover the period before the Suspension Order will come into effect (that is to say, 28 days) or the final determination of an appeal if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision within the period of 28 days.

2. She drew the Panel’s attention to Article 31 of The Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order) and the relevant paragraphs of Sanctions Policy, to which the Panel refers below. Ms. Mosley submitted that an order was necessary to protect the public and otherwise in the public interest.

3. The Registrant did not make any submissions in response to the application. 

4. The Panel also received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which it has followed in its decision set out below.

5. The Panel reminded itself that Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001 as amended provides that the Panel may make interim order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public and/or is otherwise in the public interest and/or or is in the interests of the person concerned, for the registration of that person to be suspended or to be made subject to conditions.

6. The Policy gives guidance in the following terms: 

185. The power to impose an interim order is discretionary, and so Panels should not consider it to be an automatic outcome. The Panel should carefully consider whether or not an interim order is necessary and should provide the parties with an opportunity to address the Panel on whether an interim order is required.

186. An interim order is likely to be required in cases where:

·        there is a serious and ongoing risk to service users or the public from the Registrant’s lack of professional knowledge or skills, conduct, or unmanaged health problems; or

·       the allegation is so serious that public confidence in the profession would be seriously harmed if the Registrant was allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.

History of Hearings for Juan P Saunar