Nicholas Whitaker
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
1. Between February 2020 and July 2021, your communication and/or behaviour towards your colleagues was unprofessional in that;
a. On 18 February 2020, you said to Colleague A:
i. "She [Colleague B] will kick you in your head, but you might get upset as your Turban will get dirty” or words to that effect and/or;
ii. “Or she [Colleague B] will roundhouse kick you in your head and knock your Turban off” or words to that effect.
b.On 18 February 2020, on multiple occasions you ‘blew a kiss’ to Colleague A.
c. On 03 July 2021, in relation to Colleague A’s sick leave, you told Colleague D:
i. That you hope they’re “off sick because they’ve got a brain tumour” or words to that effect;
ii. That maybe, “it’s from wearing their turban too tight” or words to that effect; and/or
iii. In relation to Particular 1c(ii), “wouldn’t that be so funny” or words to that effect.
d. On 26 July 2021, in front of an Assistant Radiographer and/or General Practitioner, you said to Colleague C that they needed to reject the x-ray they took as it was “rubbish” or words to that effect; and/or
e. On or around July 2021, whilst performing an x-ray with student radiographer, Colleague G, in front of a patient and member of staff, you shouted at Colleague G after they provided you with the wrong equipment.
2. On or around July 2021, you did not delegate appropriately and/or manage risk in that you:
a. Asked Student Radiographer, Colleague C to perform tasks without supervision that they had not been trained to do, specifically:
i. Placing Service Users on Oxygen;
ii. Moving Service Users back to their cubicle;
iii. Removing tubes from and/or placing tubes on Service Users; and/or
iv. Managing Intravenous Fluids.
3.Between 16 June 2021 and 18 June 2021, you did not work in partnership with Colleague D in that:
a. On 16 June 2021, Regarding watching the Euro Football Match at work, you told Colleague D that:
i. She would be “fine on her [Colleague D’s] own” or words to that effect.
ii. You would be “definitely watching whatever happens” or words to that effect; and/or
iii. “Ok, well if you’re saying I can’t watch it I’ll f****** ring in sick” or words to that effect and then you walked off
b. On 18 June 2021, You did not assist Colleague D with x-raying dementia patient, Service User A; and/or
c. On 18 June 2021 When Colleague H asked whether you would be assisting Colleague D you did not provide any assistance to them.
4. Your comments in Particular 1a(i-ii) and/or 1c(ii) were racially motivated.
5. The matters set out in Particulars 1 – 4 above constitute misconduct.
6. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Health Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021 amended the Health and Care Professions Council Procedures Rules 2003, to allow for the service of documentation via electronic mail. Such documentation is to be sent to the email address registered by the Registrant with the HCPC. Registrants are responsible for ensuring that the Register shows their correct current email and postal addresses.
2. The Panel has evidence that the emailed Notice of Hearing had been sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 11 June 2026. That Notice of Hearing letter set out the correct information relating to the time, date and mode of the hearing. The Panel also had evidence that this Notice of Hearing letter had been received at the Registrant’s registered email address.
3. Notice of today’s hearing had been sent 28 days in advance of the scheduled hearing, as required by the rules, and so the Panel concluded that there had been good service.
Proceeding in absence of the Registrant
4. The Panel received an application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. In support the HCPC highlighted the following factors to be taken into account by the Panel when making its decision:
• That the Registrant had been in email exchanges with the HCPC and at no point had he requested an adjournment.
• The Registrant had provided the Panel with some documentation which would mitigate any prejudice caused to him by proceeding in his absence.
• It was clear from the wording of his email of 27 May 2026 that he had no intention of attending and that he understood that the hearing would go ahead in his absence.
• The Registrant therefore appeared to have made an informed decision not to attend and could be considered as having voluntarily absented himself.
• The current order would lapse tomorrow and there was therefore no time available to arrange a further review should there be an adjournment.
• In those circumstances, the overwhelming public interest in this review continuing significantly outweighed those of the Registrant.
5. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and noted the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled ‘Proceeding in absence’. The Panel was aware that unless there were compelling reasons for an adjournment, a matter should proceed in a registrant’s absence. In the case of interim orders, there was public protection, and public interest in ensuring applications and reviews were heard without delay.
6. In relation to the issue of there being no time to reschedule the Panel appreciated the difficulties that there are with scheduling hearing however it was not something which should put the Registrant at a disadvantage.
7. The Panel has concluded that it will proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the reasons highlighted by the HCPC. It was clear from the email exchanges that the Registrant had indicated that he would not attend today, had been urged by the HCPC to engage and he had decided not to.
Application for part of the hearing should be conducted in private
8. Before opening the HCPC’s case, the Presenting Officer applied for a portion of the case to be conducted in private. This application was based on the fact that the concerns to be advanced by the HCPC related to the Registrant’s historic health suggested by the Substantive Hearing Panel in its decision. It was submitted, the direction sought would be required to protect the Registrant’s private life. The Panel having taken legal advice, agreed that the direction sought should be granted on the basis that it was required for the Registrant’s right to a private life as enshrined in human rights legislation. The fact that it would be required only for discrete portions of the hearing allowed for the principle of open justice to apply for the majority of the hearing.
Background as recorded within the substantive hearing
26. On 18 February 2020, Colleague A was working in the general X-ray department at the Trust. The Registrant and Colleague A were on the 8am to 4pm shift. At approximately 8.30am, Colleague A was talking to a student radiographer about mixed martial arts and Thai boxing. At this time the Registrant was standing nearby and could overhear the conversation.
27. After some time, the Registrant interjected into the discussion and made two statements, as identified in the Allegation, that the student Radiographer, a former member of team GB, was able to kick high enough to touch and remove Colleague A’s turban. Colleague A informed the Registrant that he found his comments offensive, and the Registrant apologised and said that he was joking. The Registrant then blew Colleague A, a kiss.
28. Colleague A asked to speak with the Registrant privately about the comments. Both parties went into the corridor and Colleague A explained a further time that he was offended by the Registrant’s comments and the Registrant again apologised and blew Colleague A a kiss. Colleague A interpreted the Registrant’s apology as insincere. Following this incident, Colleague A submitted a complaint (grievance) to the Trust. The investigation into Colleague A’s grievance came to an end in March 2020.
29. Colleague A submitted a complaint to the HCPC a year later on 19 March 2021.
30. After the referral to the HCPC had been made, the Registrant was heard by Colleague D to say in some point in July 2021, that he hoped the fact that Colleague A was off sick was due in some way to brain issues caused by his turban being too tight.
31. This comment was reported to management and along with a complaint from a first-year student nurse, led to a further Trust investigation being undertaken. That investigation was then extended to include the Registrant’s comments and actions during June 2021. Those related to comments made leading up to and including the night of 18 June when the England football team was playing in the Euros 2021. The allegation being that the Registrant did not work in partnership.
9. The Registrant resigned his position before the conclusion of the 2021 investigation.
Registrant’s documentary evidence
10. The Registrant had provided the Panel in advance with a reflective piece of writing [redacted].
HCPC’s Submissions
11. The HCPC submitted that the Panel’s role is to review the matter on the basis of the evidence available today, and to decide whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, and if so, to decide what the appropriate sanction should be.
12. The HCPC accepted that the evidence placed before the Panel today indicated that the Registrant had made significant progress with gaining insight into his previous actions. The HCPC considered that the Registrant’s level of engagement should be taken into account notwithstanding that he has stated his intention not to return to practice.
13. The HCPC’s position was that whilst there had been some remediation, in the form of insight, there remained concerns on other issues. The HCPC drew the Panel’s attention to the guidance the Substantive Hearing Panel had given to the Registrant. In relation to those matters identified by the Substantive Hearing Panel there had been only partial compliance. The suggested evidence had been:
• Reflective piece of writing addressing all aspects of the allegations.
• This will include reflection upon matters such as racial discrimination; management of risk; working collaboratively; and demonstration of full insight into the impact of his actions upon others.
• Professional updates and evidence of keeping his knowledge and skills up to date.
• Evidence of any courses attended, and any personal skills or qualifications gained.
• It would be beneficial to the Registrant to personally attend this review hearing either alone or with a supporter.
• [redacted].
14. The HCPC accepted that the Registrant had undertaken some meaningful reflection on the matters that had given rise to his misconduct and drew the Panel’s attention to the genuine expressions of remorse, apology and regret expressed by the Registrant. It was a matter for the Panel to conclude if the Registrant had fully demonstrated remediation through reflection.
15. There was some evidence that the Registrant had undertaken study specifically into the issues of racial discrimination, and again it was a matter for the Panel to determine the weight to place upon this.
16. The Registrant had failed to provide the Panel with any details of how he had retained his knowledge and skills by, for instance, continuous study; details of courses attended; or details of further personal professional development. In this regard the Panel was directed to the Registrant’s email of 27 May 2026 in which the Registrant had confirmed that he had not undertaken any further professional training or study. He had further stated that he did not intend returning to practice and would, when he could, remove himself from the Register as a reason.
17. There was no evidence of any courses undertaken by the Registrant and so the Panel had nothing before it to give any weight to.
18. The Substantive Hearing Panel had indicated that the Registrant’s personal attendance would be of assistance, and the Panel was invited by the HCPC to note that the Registrant had been encouraged to participate but had stated clearly in his email exchanges that he had no intention of attending this review hearing.
19. [redacted].
20. It was the HCPC’s position that at this time there was insufficient evidence to support the view that there had been full remediation such that the Registrant should be allowed to return to unrestricted practice. Further evidence was required to demonstrate to the Panel that on the personal component, there had been full remediation. Whilst the HCPC accepted that the Panel was not bound by the Substantive Hearing Panel’s recommendations, the onus that is on all practitioners to keep their knowledge and skills up to date and this Panel had nothing to demonstrate that the Registrant had. This being the case, on the personal component the Registrant remained impaired.
21. In relation to the public component, the HCPC considered that members of the public would be rightly concerned if the Registrant were allowed to return to practice without having demonstrated that it was safe for him to do so.
Legal advice
22. The persuasive burden on a review is placed upon the registrant and this was decided in the case of Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). It remains the case that:
“a. The Registrant has not demonstrated any further level of insight;
b. The Registrant has not provided any evidence of steps taken to remediate her lack of competence;
c. There must therefore remain a high risk of repetition of her lack of competence.”
23. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its purpose today was to conduct a comprehensive review to determine if the Registrant is fit to return to unrestricted practice. She referred the Panel to the case of Yussuff v GMC [2018] EWHC 13 (Admin) in relation to the approach to be adopted in relation to this review hearing. She reminded the Panel that its role was not to conduct a rehearing of the allegations nor was it to go behind the previous findings. She advised that in carrying out this assessment, the Panel must exercise its own independent judgment. In this regard she directed the Panel to the HCPTS guidance within the Practice Notes entitled ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ and ‘Review of Article 30 Sanctions Orders’.
24. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that if it determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, then the Panel must go on to consider what sanction, if any, should be imposed. The Panel’s powers under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, are
a. Extend the Suspension Order;
b. Make any order it could have made at the time of the original Order being imposed;
c. Or replace the Suspension with a Conditions of Practice Order, with which the Registrant must comply if he resumes practice.
25. She also advised the Panel that it should bear in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality and have regard to the Sanctions Policy document issued by the HCPTS. She reminded the Panel that any order that it makes under Article 30 should not be punitive in purpose, and that it should be the least restrictive order that would suffice to protect the public and/or would otherwise be in the public interest.
Panel’s decision
26. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the relevant Practice Notes issued by the HCPTS and the terms of the Sanction Policy.
27. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel took into consideration all the documentation before it, and the submissions of the parties. The Panel considered that this review required the Registrant to demonstrate both developed insight and remediation of their conduct such that they are considered suitable for return to unrestricted practice.
28. The fact that there has been fresh evidence of engagement by the Registrant was encouraging. Whilst the Panel noted that the Registrant’s current intention not to return to practice continuing to engage in the HCPC process demonstrated a level of professional responsibility. The Panel considered that the reflective piece of writing had addressed the issues which had been identified within the Allegation. The Panel accepted the statements of regret, remorse and apology as genuine. The Panel regretted that the Registrant had chosen not to attend as it would have had the opportunity to hear from the Registrant in person his path to a full state of reflection.
29. [redacted].
30. The Registrant’s attendance would have afforded the Panel the opportunity to question the Registrant on what he had learnt from the Regulatory process and what things he would with hindsight do differently. What steps would he put in place to ensure no recurrence and how he would manage and supervise others differently in the future. There was insufficient evidence of the Registrant now being able to provide a good level of supervision and delegation.
31. The Panel noted that there had been no details of further steps to retain his knowledge and skills. The Panel had no information as to how long the Registrant had been out of practice. There was therefore insufficient evidence of remediation that would support the Panel in allowing the Registrant to return to practice at this time and therefore remains impaired on the personal component.
32. An element of the personal component relating to poor clinical judgment and supervision was of particular concern to the Panel, involving as it did issues of patient safety. This element would be of particular concern in relation to the public component as well. The Panel considered that a member of the public would be very concerned at the possibility of a repetition of the Registrant’s behaviour that had led to unqualified radiographers undertaking tasks outside of their knowledge and skillsets and had put patients at risk of harm. This had been despite this being outside of their remit having been brought to his attention at the time and he had overruled those concerns.
33. In the light of all the above, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and the public component.
34. The Panel then went on to consider what the appropriate and proportionate restriction should be, starting with the least restrictive. It bore in mind that the purpose of a sanction was not to be punitive, although a sanction may have that effect.
35. The Panel also bore in mind that its over-arching objective is:
• to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public;
• to promote and maintain public confidence in the profession; and
• to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.
36. The Panel first considered taking no action but was satisfied that the Registrant’s failings were so serious that the public interest considerations could not be met by such an outcome. The Panel was not satisfied that there would be no risk to the public, or to public confidence in the profession by taking no action.
37. Given the Panel’s findings, it was also not satisfied that mediation was an appropriate sanction given that the particular circumstances of this case make such an outcome irrelevant.
38. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Caution Order and gave consideration to the guidance within the Sanctions Policy. The Panel concluded that such an order would not be sufficient to protect the public, nor would it be in the public interest given that the Registrant’s failings had not been fully remediated and there remained a likelihood of repetition of his poor supervision and delegation skills. Such an order would not restrict the Registrant’s practice and would therefore not adequately protect the public or safeguard the public interest.
39. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. It concluded that it would neither be appropriate nor proportionate given the nature of the lack of full remediation, relating as it did to issues of clinical judgment, supervision and delegation and no details of current knowledge and skills. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that it could formulate personal conditions that would address those clinical judgement failings, in the absence of any indication from the Registrant that he was willing and able to comply with such conditions then such a measure was not appropriate. The Panel has concluded that it could not formulate appropriate conditions at this time.
40. The Panel next considered extending the existing Suspension Order with a shorter period of suspension as requested by the HCPC. It concluded that a further short period of suspension for six months is appropriate at this time. However, the Registrant should be in no doubt that, if he does not demonstrate his fitness to practise before the end of this further period of suspension, a future reviewing Panel may be invited to and agree to a striking off order.
41. This Panel has set out below its recommendation as to the nature of the evidence which a future reviewing panel may wish to see before it. Whilst this Panel cannot bind the decision of a future reviewing panel in this Panel’s view, the matters on which the Registrant’s further training and study should be focused on relate to his clinical judgment and decision making together with the areas of supervision and delegation. It is for the Registrant to show what he would do differently in the future and what he has learnt from his former poor conduct.
42. To assess whether the decision for a short further period of suspension was both appropriate and proportionate the Panel gave consideration to whether a striking-off order was warranted in this case. The Panel, as stated above, thought it encouraging that the Registrant had maintained engagement and had produced a comprehensive piece of reflective writing that demonstrated full insight into his engagement with former colleagues. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant has, at this time, provided sufficient indication of his ability to remediate and notwithstanding his current stated wish to voluntarily give up his registration it would be disproportionate to strike him off the Register.
43. The Panel makes the Order for a further period of suspension in the interests of service users and the wider public interest. The Registrant is reminded of the duty of all registrants to keep their knowledge and skills up to date and the fact that he may be required at a review to demonstrate this. A future reviewing panel would also be assisted by the Registrant providing evidence of the following:
Evidence of:
• Undertaking reading, study and appropriate courses relating to the elements of clinical judgement and clinical decision making;
• Undertaking reading, study and appropriate courses relating to how supervision of, and delegation to, juniors should be approached and managed.
Order
ORDER: The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register that a further period of suspension has been imposed on 10 July 2026 for a period of 6 months upon the expiry of the current order.
The order imposed today will apply from 11 July 2026.
This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 11 January 2027.
Notes
Right of Appeal
The Registrant may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against them.
Under Articles 30(10) and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on the Registrant.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Nicholas Whitaker
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/07/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Suspended |
| 11/06/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |
| 03/03/2025 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Adjourned part heard |