Miss Alexandra Hudson

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was provided with proof that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 3 June 2026. 

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

3. The Panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s registered address on a date that predated the hearing by more than 28 days. In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”). 

Application to hear the proceeding in absence application in private

4. Ms Patel applied for the application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant to be heard in private. She submitted that the Registrant’s submissions in that regard centred on her health. 

5. The Legal Assessor provided advice based on Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (“the Rules”) which states that:

“the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.

6. The Panel decided that any matters relating to the Registrant’s health should be heard in private as they clearly relate to the Registrant’s private life. The Panel agreed that the application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was likely to involve discussion of the Registrant’s health. 

7. In those circumstances the Panel decided that the application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant would be held entirely in private.  

Proceeding in absence 

8. [Redacted].

Application to hear part of the hearing in private

9. Ms Patel applied for any references to the Registrant’s health and private life to be heard in private. 

10. The Legal Assessor provided advice based on Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 as amended (“the Rules”) which states that:

“the proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the registrant, the complainant, any person giving evidence or of any patient or client, the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.

11. The Panel agreed that any matters relating to the Registrant’s health or private life should be heard in private. 

12. On that basis the Panel decided to hold the hearing partly in private.  

Witnesses

13. The HCPC relied on the Memorandum of Conviction and HCPC witness statements provided by the following witnesses:

- VM, Registration Manager, HCPC
- SB, Theatre Manager, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
- JF, Allied Health Professional Faculty Lead, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.

14. The Registrant provided a number of certificates, testimonials and two statements written by her, the first dated February 2025, and second dated 8 July 2026. 

Background

15. The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner. The Registrant has been employed by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (“the Trust”) since January 2020. 

16. The Registrant was involved in a road traffic collision in August 2020. Her vehicle collided with two vehicles, following which she left the scene of the collision. 

17. On 1 April 2021 the Registrant was convicted at Birmingham Magistrates Court having entered guilty pleas to two offences, namely: 

1. Drove a mechanically propelled vehicle without due care and attention, Contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998. 

2. Being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle owing to the presence of which on a road an accident occurred, whereby damage was caused to another vehicle, failed to stop. Contrary to section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 

18. The Registrant emailed her line manager to inform her of the convictions on the day of the conviction. 

19. It is alleged that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of her convictions until or around 29 October 2022, when she applied to renew her HCPC registration. 

20. The Registrant provided the HCPC with a copy of the memorandum of conviction on 8 November 2022. 

Decision on Facts

21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 1

22. The Panel found Particular 1 proved on the basis of the Memorandum of Conviction and Rule 10 (1) (d) which states:

“where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction…. shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based”. 

Particular 2

23. In her statement dated February 2025 the Registrant said:

“I was in court on 1st April 2021…..I emailed my Line manager after the court case that day and told her of my convictions…..I was not aware that I needed to inform the HCPC of my convictions at this time. I had not been practising as an ODP for very long and I was not advised to inform them when telling my Line manager if I had of known this, I would’ve copied them in the email I sent to my Line manager.… I told the HCPC about my convictions when I was renewing my pin in October 2022 as it asks if you have anything to declare.”

24. In her statement dated 8 July 2026 the Registrant said:

“I did not intentionally or purposely withhold any information……If I had known I needed to inform the HCPC of the car accident straight away I would have added them into the email to my management at the time. That was due to lack of knowledge on my part as I had not been working as an ODP for very long at all… When I emailed my manager about the outcome of court proceedings, I was not advised by them or HR to inform you. I can only apologise for that and the lack of communication at this time.”

25. The Panel found Particular 2 proved on the basis of the evidence provided by the witness statements and the Registrant’s statements in which the Panel concluded she accepted that she had not informed the HCPC of her conviction until the time of her HCPC registration renewal which could not be said to be “as soon as possible”.

Evidence on Misconduct and Impairment

26. In her statement to the HCPC, written in February 2025, the Registrant stated:

“I started working as an Operating Department Practitioner (ODP) in January 2020…..I had only been working as an ODP for 2 months before I had to isolate at home and then came back to work July time before my car accident in August 2020.

I had only been practising as an ODP for a very short time, a matter of months in fact. After reporting the Road Traffic Collision (RCT) to the police in August, they assured me not to worry and that would probably be the last I heard about it.

I did not hear a thing from them at all until I received court papers through the post in February 2021.

When receiving my court papers through 6 months after the RTC, I went to see my Line Manager at the time….to discuss the allegations and explain what had happened in the RCT. My manager was very understanding and supportive and told me to email her once I had been to court.

I was in court on 1st April 2021 and was convicted of two charges, 1. Fleeing the scene of a RTC and 2. Driving without due care or attention. I received a fine of £500 and 6 penalty points on my licence.

I emailed my Line manager after the court case that day and told her of my convictions.

My Line Manager forwarded everything on to HR.

I was not aware that I needed to inform the HCPC of my convictions at this time, I had not been practising as an ODP for very long and I was not advised to inform them when telling my Line manager? If I had of known this, I would of copied them in the email I sent to my Line Manager. I was not trying to be dishonest in any way or hide the conviction from the HCPC.

I told the HCPC about my convictions when I was renewing my pin in October 2022 as it asks if you have anything to declare on your DBS so I informed them at this stage.

I did not deliberately hold back any information and can only apologise for not informing the HCPC as soon as the RCT happened.

I now know the importance of informing the HCPC as soon as an incident happens.

[Redacted].

27. In her statement to the HCPC, dated 8 July 2026, the Registrant stated:

“I cannot apologise enough for the car incident that took place in 2020. The whole thing was very traumatic and was poor judgement on my part.

I should never have walked away from the scene of the accident but I felt threatened and scared and highly vulnerable and my initial reaction was to get out of the situation. [Redacted].

In hindsight, this was poor judgement. I would certainly do things very differently and would not have left the scene or even got in my car in the first place when I was so tired and emotionally drained. All a huge learning curve, which will never happen again.

I have never been a dishonest person and have always been held accountable for my actions.

I did not intentionally or purposely withhold any information regarding this RCT….If I had known I needed to inform the HCPC of the car accident straight away I would have added them into the email to my management at the time.

That was due to lack of knowledge on my part as I had not been working as an ODP for very long at all….. When I emailed my manager about the outcome of court proceedings, I was not advised by them or HR to inform you. I can only apologise for that and the lack of communication at this time.

I have practiced as an Operating Department Practitioner since January 2020 and there has never been any issues with my practice to date. I have been allowed to practice since having the RCT with no restrictions and do not agree that my practice is currently impaired.

I can see why it would have been at the time of the incident but many years have passed since that and I have taken my punishment and learnt from my mistakes, as well as dealing with the worry and angst of a 3+ year pending tribunal.

Please accept my sincere apologies and take in to consideration that I take accountability and full responsibility for my actions”.

Submissions on Misconduct and Impairment

28. In relation to Particular 2, Ms Patel submitted that the Registrant’s behaviour had breached a number of HCPC Standards. She submitted that whilst there was no suggestion that the Registrant had acted dishonestly when she failed to disclose her criminal convictions to the HCPC, nevertheless the Registrant had been under a duty to abide by the relevant Standards, and should have been aware of those Standards, including the Standard 9.5 requiring her to disclose any criminal convictions as soon as possible. In not being proactive in that regard, her behaviour had fallen far short of what was proper in the circumstances and amounted to misconduct. 

29. Ms Patel submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of both Particulars 1 and 2. Ms Patel accepted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s account to her employer and to the HCPC showed some insight on her part. However, Ms Patel submitted that the Registrant had demonstrated no meaningful insight into the impact her actions may have on the perception the public would have of her profession. Ms Patel submitted that a finding of impairment was needed to maintain standards and uphold confidence in the profession. Further, she submitted that the Registrant’s failure to disclose her convictions had put patients at risk of harm in that it had prevented an informed risk assessment from taking place by her Regulator.

Decision on Misconduct 

30. In considering Particular 2, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had breached the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics January 2016:

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

9.5 You must tell us as soon as possible if: you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence…

31. In considering whether those breaches were serious enough to amount to misconduct, the Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant’s failure to notify the HCPC of her convictions was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career. Further, although the Registrant failed to notify the HCPC, she did notify her line manager on the day of the conviction. There was no suggestion that she had acted dishonestly by deliberately seeking to hide her convictions from the HCPC. She had said, and the Panel accepts, that she did not fully appreciate her duty to report to the HCPC, and that it was not until she was specifically asked to disclose any convictions at the time of applying to renew her registration that she fully registered the need to do so.

32. However, whilst the Registrant’s failure to disclose had not been dishonest or motivated by any malintent, she had failed to be sufficiently proactive or professional in her approach to addressing and reminding herself of her professional responsibilities to uphold the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics as a registered Operating Department Practitioner. It was the judgement of the Panel that this amounted to a serious failing on her part. The Panel concluded that it was incumbent on her to ensure that she fully understood the professional Standards, and in particular a Standard as serious as disclosure of criminal convictions, in the context of causing damage to other vehicles through her careless driving and then leaving the scene. Although she reported the matter to the police, her failure to notify the HCPC was compounded by the fact that a full 18 months then passed before she finally disclosed her convictions to the HCPC only when she applied to renew her registration. 

33. In those circumstances, it was the judgement of the Panel that the Registrant’s failure to declare, as found proved in Particular 2, amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment 

34. The Panel considered whether, in its judgement, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of her convictions, as found proved in Particular 1, and her misconduct, relating to Particular 2. 

35. In considering the Registrant’s convictions, the Panel noted that the Registrant has been consistent and clear about the circumstances at the time that led to her lapse in judgement. The Panel also noted that its role is not to punish a Registrant who has already been punished by the courts for their offence but is to consider the convictions in respect of the protection of the public and the maintenance of Standards and the reputation of the profession. The Panel noted the circumstances put forward by the Registrant that were taking place in her life over this period of time. The Panel accepted that the Registrant’s criminal behaviour had taken place in the context of difficult personal circumstances, as described in her statements. 

36. The Registrant told the HCPC in an email sent at the time of her renewal on 22 October 2022 [Redacted]. The Registrant has consistently said that she recognises that leaving the scene was a poor judgment. In considering whether there was a risk that the Registrant would repeat her behaviour, the Panel bore in mind that the accident occurred in 2020 and the convictions were in 2021 and there has been no repetition of her conduct. Further she has shown a clear understanding of the seriousness of her lapse in judgement and insight into the circumstances leading up to this.

37. The Registrant had entered pleas of guilty to her behaviour at the Magistrates Court, and had admitted both Particulars to the HCPC at the first available opportunity. The Panel considered she had demonstrated genuine remorse and insight into the seriousness of her actions, through her early acceptance of her wrongdoing and the explanations she set out in her two witness statements sent to the HCPC.

38. The Standards require that convictions are shared as soon as possible with the Regulator. In not informing the Regulator of her convictions as soon as possible the Panel found that she has breached the professional Standard 9.5 and this amounted to misconduct. The Panel considered that the misconduct is remediable. In considering whether there was a likelihood of this behaviour being repeated the Panel considered the statements the Registrant has sent in 2025 and to this Panel in 2026. 

39. The Panel considered the circumstances at the time and noted there were clear expressions of remorse for her omission stating, “I did not deliberately hold back any information and can only apologise for not informing the HCPC as soon as the RCT happened.”  “Please accept my sincere apologies and take into consideration that I take accountability and full responsibility for my actions.”

40. The Panel was of the view that in her statements the Registrant showed insight into the seriousness of these matters and fully recognised her ‘poor judgement’ in not informing the Regulator of her convictions as soon as possible.  In considering whether there was a risk that the Registrant would repeat her behaviour, the Panel bore in mind that the failure to disclose took place over five years ago. There had been no repetition of her conduct in this regard since that time. 

41. The Panel considered that based on the consistent acceptance of a failure to inform the Regulator as soon as possible and taking accountability for her actions, the Registrant shows clear insight into her poor judgement. The Panel also considered that this misconduct was unlikely to reoccur. The active steps the Registrant is now taking will provide her with more effective strategies [Redacted]. 

42. It was the judgement of the Panel that the Registrant’s actions had not placed members of the public at risk of harm. In relation to Particular 2 the Panel concluded that the suggestion that her lack of disclosure had led to a risk of harm through frustrating the HCPC risk assessment process, was not supported by any evidence and there had been no further offending on the Registrant’s part in over five years. 

43. In those circumstances the Panel concluded that the risk that the Registrant would repeat her behaviour in relation to either Particular 1 or Particular 2 was low and that the Registrant does not pose a risk of harm to the public on the basis of either Particular.

44. On that basis the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired on public protection grounds.

45. In considering the first element of the public component the Panel has found the Registrant has insight and is unlikely to repeat these past omissions and does not present a risk to the public. In considering the other two elements of maintaining professional Standards and public confidence in the profession the Panel concluded that a fully informed member of the public would be shocked if there was not a finding of impairment on public interest grounds taking into account all of the circumstances of this case. The Registrant had been convicted of criminal offences, which included leaving the scene of an accident having caused damage to other vehicles, and she had then failed to report those convictions to her Regulator until a full 18 months later. 

46. Despite the Registrant’s remorse and insight, and despite the low risk of repetition, it was the judgement of the Panel that a finding of impairment of fitness to practise was required on public interest grounds alone, to uphold standards within the profession and to maintain confidence in the Registrant, her profession and her Regulator. The public would understandably be appalled when a Registrant is convicted of two criminal offences and neglects their professional responsibility to report their convictions timeously as they are required by the Standards to do. The public must have confidence that a Registrant as a member of their profession will abide by the law and ensure that, as soon as possible, they provide their Regulator with information relevant to their membership of this professional group, and if they do not that their Regulator will take appropriate action. Members of the public would be shocked and public confidence in the profession damaged if there was not a finding of impairment.

47. On that basis the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on public interest grounds alone.

Submissions on Sanction

48. Ms Patel put forward a number of suggested mitigating factors in the case, namely the Registrant’s early admissions, her apology, her genuine remorse and insight, the challenging personal circumstances she faced at the time of the Allegation, the positive testimonials she had provided and the fact that she has no previous regulatory findings against her name.  

49. Ms Patel put forward one possible aggravating factor for the Panel’s consideration, namely the lengthy period of time that passed before the Registrant declared her convictions to the HCPC. 

50. Ms Patel submitted that sanction was a matter for the judgement of the Panel, but that the sanction chosen should be sufficient to protect the public and the public interest and should not be punitive. 

Decision on Sanction.

51. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, and took account of the current Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC. 

52. The Panel kept in mind that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive. The Panel understood that it should apply the principle of proportionality, by weighing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public and the wider public interest, and applying the least restrictive sanction available to meet those needs. 

53. The Panel approached its decision on sanction in this case on the basis of its finding of impairment, which was a public interest only finding, and did not involve public protection concerns.

54. The Panel regarded the length of time before the Registrant disclosed her convictions to the HCPC to be an aggravating factor, in that she did not disclose them for some 18 months, which was a lengthy period of time. 

55. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was mitigated by:

• the pleas of guilty she entered at the first available opportunity at the Magistrates Court;
• her immediate admissions to the allegations of fact brought by the HCPC; 
• her apology, remorse, and genuine insight into her past behaviour;
• the fact that this was an isolated event;
• the positive testimonials she had provided; 
• the difficult personal circumstances she faced at the time of the accident, as described earlier in this decision;
• the proactive steps the Registrant had taken to timeously update her employer about the convictions.

56. The Panel had concluded at the impairment stage that there are no public protection concerns in the case, and that it is solely the public interest that requires consideration.

57. The Panel concluded that to take no further action would be insufficient to address the public interest in the circumstances of the case.

58. The Panel understood that it should not treat the factors set out in the Sanctions Guidance as a check list. It concluded that a Caution Order was suitable to consider in this case, because: 

- facts found proven centre on an isolated event;
- there is a low risk of repetition;
- the Registrant has shown good insight; and 
- the Registrant has taken appropriate remedial action.

59. The Registrant had provided certificates confirming her attendance on five courses, which demonstrated engagement on her part but were of limited relevance due to the subject matter of the courses themselves.

60. However, the Panel took account of the fact that the Registrant is clearly a good clinician, as demonstrated by three testimonials she provided from her workplace. These date back to 2024 and 2025 but this was understandable as the Registrant is currently off work [Redacted]. One of the testimonials, dated, 28 April 2025, was written by the Registrant’s manager and Clinical Lead at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, who said that the Registrant:

“is a reliable, dedicated and hard-working individual who always drives to provide excellent patient care and continual professional development. She works across both anaesthetics and recovery and is an asset to the department……She has a passion for supporting others and continually learning within her role. Alexandra is kind and compassionate with patients and colleagues alike and embodies the qualities needed of her role and profession”.

The Panel concluded that it was in the public interest to allow this good clinician to remain in practice.

61. The Registrant has shown genuine remorse and insight into the impact of her actions on her standing as a professional. She had admitted both Particulars from the outset, and had provided a sincere apology. Her clear declaration that she should have informed the HCPC about her convictions at an earlier stage, and the genuine insight she has demonstrated into the concerns relating to both Particulars, shows an understanding on her part of the seriousness of her actions. She has accepted that she should not have been driving on the day of the car accident [Redacted]. She has explained that whilst she accepts that she should have remained on the scene following the crash, [Redacted]. She has from the date of reregistering openly recognised her error in not doing so as soon as possible and her accountability for this omission.

62. For those reasons, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case, and was sufficient to maintain standards of professional conduct and to uphold public confidence in the profession.

63. The Panel concluded that a Conditions of Practice Order would be inappropriate in light of the lack of clinical concerns.

64. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would be wholly disproportionate in this case and would be punitive. There were no public protection issues, there were a considerable number of mitigating factors and the Registrant is reportedly a good clinician who would serve the public well by being permitted to practice.

65. In considering the length of a Caution Order, the Panel concluded that a period of one year was appropriate. This would serve to mark the seriousness of the behaviour found proved. Any longer order would be disproportionate in light of the mitigating factors of the case.

66. Accordingly, the Panel imposed a Caution Order for a period of one year.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Miss Alexandra Hudson with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of one year from the date this order comes into effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Miss Alexandra Hudson