Mr Afzaal Sharif

Preliminary Matters

Privacy 

1. At the outset of the hearing, no application was made to hear any of the case in private. However, during the course of Ms Stannard’s submissions in relation to impairment, reference was made to the Registrant’s wife’s health. 

2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Conducting Hearings in Private’ dated February 2025.

3. The Panel determined, of its own motion, that it would sit partially in private in respect of any matters concerning the health of the Registrant’s wife. It did so in order to protect her private life and having balanced that interest against the principle of open justice.

Background

4. The Registrant is a registered Hearing Aid Dispenser who is employed by Hidden Hearing as a Hearing Aid Dispenser.

5. The Registrant commenced employment with Hidden Hearing in November 2018 as a Trainee Hearing Aid Dispenser, becoming a Pre-Registered Hearing Aid Dispenser in May 2019, and a Registered Hearing Aid Dispenser in April 2020.

6. On 1 December 2023, the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC, stating that he had been accused of ‘sexual assault by intentional touch (sic) in a club 18/11 I have been charged of slapping a ladies (sic) bottom in a club which I didn’t do. I have a magistrates court date on the 14/12 at Westminster. I am to plea not guilty of the charge.’

7. The Police Report (MG5) states that:

‘on SATURDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2023 at approximately 0245hrs [redacted] was in TIGER TIGER SW1Y 4SP with friends. [redacted] walked up the stairs to go to the upper floor of the club when SHARIF walked down the stairs. As he walked past [redacted], she felt him slap her on the bottom. Turning and confronting him, she asked "why did you do that" to which he responded "BECAUSE YOU ARE ATTRACTIVE". SHARIF attempted to leave and walk towards the dance floor, followed by [redacted][redacted] has then grabbed [redacted] attention, alerted him to what happened. [redacted] has followed SHARIF, detaining him and turning to [redacted] asking "is this the person" to which she responded "yes". At this point [redacted] has detained SHARIF and radioed for support, at which point [redacted] has arrived and police have been called. [redacted] stayed with SHARIF.’

8. The Registrant was interviewed by the Police during the afternoon of 18 November 2023. During his police interview, the Registrant denied any recollection of the events leading to his arrest, stating that he had only consumed 3-4 alcoholic drinks and that he believed something could have been put inside his drink. During the questioning he was told that he was seen on CCTV slapping the victim on her bottom. When asked if he recalled doing this, he replied ‘No’.

9. The Registrant was subsequently charged at 20:57 on 18 November 2023 with: ‘On 18 November 2023 at London in the Borough of Westminster intentionally touched a woman aged 16 or over and that touching was sexual when she did not consent and you did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. Contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003’.

10. The Registrant pleaded ‘not guilty’ to this charge and faced a trial on indictment at Southwark Crown Court. He was convicted after trial on 28 March 2025 and was given unconditional bail until his sentencing hearing. The Registrant was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on 20 May 2025. He was sentenced to:

• A 12-month community order with an unpaid work requirement of 80 hours to be completed within 12 months supervised by the responsible officer.

• Compensation of £500.

• Victim surcharge of £95.

• Notification requirement to register with the police in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 20023 from 19 May 2025 for a period of 5 years.

11. The transcript of the sentencing hearing includes the following remarks by HHJ Hiddleston:

‘…Not surprisingly [the complainant] was deeply shocked and upset by your behaviour… From her victim impact statement it is clear that she has been affected by what you did, it affects her ability to enjoy nights out, fearing as she does that this type of assault may happen again…’

12. The Judge also recorded, within the sentencing, that the Registrant had provided a letter to the court in relation to which the Judge said:

‘I know from your letter to me that you feel great shame at what you did and so you should. I do accept that this was an opportunistic offence committed whilst under the influence of alcohol. Whilst that is an aggravating feature, I also accept that this was a one-off display of poor judgment on your part. I agree with you through the presentence report that this is out of character and that you are unlikely to offend, but I repeat you should be deeply ashamed for what you did. You clearly upset that young lady and the effect of what you did is something that she still bears the scars of…However, you are now 30 years old. You are a hardworking, highly valued employee and a man of previous good character. This latter feature is very important mitigating material so far as you are concerned, especially in light of my conclusion that this was out of character for you, but it is also a tragedy that at your age you have thrown away your good name in the way that you have.’

13. The Judge then went on to impose the sentence as set out at paragraph 10 of this decision. 

Decision on Facts

‘1. On 28 March 2025 you were convicted at Southwark Crown Court of ‘sexual assault on a female’. 

14. The Registrant admitted this fact at the outset of the hearing.

15. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Admissions’ dated January 2026.

16. The Panel took into account that the Registrant is legally represented and was satisfied that the Registrant’s admission was unequivocal. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s admission was consistent with the evidence before it, namely the Certificate of Conviction. The Panel was therefore satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to find the fact proved on the basis of the Registrant’s admission.

Decision on Grounds

17. Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (“the Order”) provides that one of the grounds upon which an Allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of: a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence.

18. The Panel took into account that in this case, the Registrant had been convicted, at Southwark Crown Court, on 28 March 2025, of the charges as set out in Particular 1, as detailed in the Certificate of Conviction.

19. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the statutory ground of conviction is established. 

Evidence, Submissions and Legal Advice on Impairment    

Registrant’s evidence

20. The Registrant gave oral evidence under oath. He was examined in chief, cross-examined and asked questions by the Panel. 

21. In summary form, the Registrant’s evidence was as follows:

• He is aged 31 and married his wife in March 2023. He has a young child.

• He has worked as a Hearing Aid Dispenser since qualifying in February 2020, having commenced training in 2018. Prior to that, he worked in hospital-based administrative roles, including clerical and data management positions supporting multidisciplinary teams. He described his work as including patient-facing roles and stated that he had received positive feedback, including an award for his contribution to service improvement.

• He had no prior complaints or disciplinary concerns during his career and no previous convictions before the incident.

• He had been motivated to enter the profession from a young age, having cared for a grandparent for a number of years.

• He described his current role as involving independent consultations with patients, typically seeing around 10 patients per day, and emphasised the importance of informed consent and professional boundaries in his work.

• In relation to the incident of 18 November 2023, the Registrant accepted that he slapped the complainant on the buttock. He told the Panel that he had attended a family funeral earlier that day and had travelled to London to meet friends. He stated that he does not usually drink alcohol or attend clubs, but on this occasion, he consumed alcohol and was intoxicated. He described his drinking of alcohol as infrequent.

• He said that at the time of his arrest and initial account, he did not believe he had committed a sexual assault and did not recall the incident. He initially maintained his innocence and the matter proceeded to trial. He explained that having heard the evidence and following the jury’s consideration, he accepted the conviction and took responsibility for his actions.

• He said that since the conviction he has reflected deeply on his behaviour and its consequences. He stated that he now understands the seriousness of his actions, particularly in relation to consent, personal boundaries, and the impact on the complainant. He expressed remorse and stated that he had written a letter of apology to the complainant acknowledging the harm caused.

• He outlined a number of remedial steps he has taken, including completing continuing professional development in ethics and professionalism, engaging with probation requirements, and completing the unpaid work. He confirmed that he has complied fully with the terms of his sentence and that his probation period has concluded. He also self-referred to the HCPC.

• He stated that he has ceased consuming alcohol and avoids environments such as late-night venues. He said that he has reflected on the importance of maintaining professional standards both inside and outside of work.

• In relation to his employment, he said that he informed his employer of the incident the following day. He described undergoing risk assessments and meetings with management, human resources and colleagues. He stated that he was deemed safe by his employer to remain in his role. He continues to work in a clinical setting and is subject to increased supervision, including regular managerial oversight and observation of his consultations on a monthly basis. He explained that, whilst he works one-to-one with patients in a consulting room, he is based in a clinic environment with other staff present. He also stated that risk assessments are periodically reviewed. He said that his colleagues had been asked whether they wished to continue to work alongside him and that they had all been supportive and considered that his behaviour had been out of character. 

• In response to questions from the Panel, the Registrant accepted the conviction and acknowledged that his actions were wrong. He stated that he has taken responsibility for his conduct and recognised the need to maintain public trust in the profession. He indicated that he continues to review professional standards and policies and remains committed to practising in accordance with those standards.

HCPC submissions

22. In relation to impairment, Mr Barnfield adopted his written case summary, which states:

‘Whether the proven facts amount to impairment of fitness to practise is a matter of judgement for the Committee and the HCPC does not propose to present any separate evidence on this point.

The Convictions and Cautions Practice Note at paragraph 16 records that: “The Panel’s task is to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned, and, if so, whether any sanction needs to be imposed”.

Paragraph 17: “In considering the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence, Panels need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the registrant’s actions bring the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in that profession. In doing so, Panels are entitled to adopt a retrospective approach and consider the conviction as if the registrant was applying for registration with the HCPC”.

The Panel is reminded of the case of R(Low) v GOC [2007] EWHC 2839 (Admin) which states at paragraph 20:

“The seriousness of the criminal offence, as measured by the sentence imposed by the Crown Court, is not necessarily a reliable guide to its gravity in terms of maintaining public confidence in a particular profession. Thus, a relatively minor offence of financial dishonesty may well be considered to be of the utmost gravity by the Law Society when dealing with a solicitor who has care of his client’s funds.” 

The HCPC submits that the conviction in this case is for a serious offence, as categorised within the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy at page 13, paragraph 39. This section of the Policy states that some conduct may be considered fundamentally incompatible with continued registration because it represents a particularly serious departure from the standards required of HCC registrants. Examples are then provided at paragraph 179, on page 37. Of those listed is “conduct which is sexual in nature…”, “inclusion on a sexual offenders’ database” and “criminal convictions…for serious offences”.

The HCPC submits that the Registrant has breached standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics- you must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

The HCPC will argue that the Registrant is in breach of the above Standard and that his behaviour falls far below that expected of a registered health professional. The HCPC will argue that based on the available evidence, the Registrant poses a real risk of significant harm to the public. If the facts are proven the HCPC will argue that the allegations are so serious that finding that the Registrant’s behaviour does not amount to impairment would undermine confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.’

23. Mr Barnfield supplemented his written submissions with oral submissions. He reminded the Panel that the conduct in question did not arise in a professional setting but submitted that this does not diminish its significance. He submitted that the Panel must consider whether the Registrant’s conduct, namely a conviction for sexual assault of a member of the public, demonstrates a risk to the public and impacts upon public confidence in the profession.

24. Mr Barnfield submitted that this case concerns a conviction for sexual offending, which is inherently serious. He submitted that the nature of the offence and the sentencing remarks demonstrate that the conduct had a significant impact upon the victim. However, the Panel was invited to consider not only the harm actually caused, but also the risk of future harm and the broader impact on public confidence and the reputation of the profession.

25. Mr Barnfield identified a number of relevant factors, in the Registrant’s favour, in that the incident appears to have been isolated, there is no previous history of misconduct or criminal offending, and the conduct did not occur in the workplace. However, the Panel was invited to consider whether the conduct was remediable, whether steps have been taken to remediate, and whether the Registrant is likely to repeat such behaviour.

26. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Panel should scrutinise carefully the Registrant’s level of insight and remediation. It was submitted that a mere assertion of remorse or insight is insufficient, rather, the Panel must assess the depth of the Registrant’s understanding of the impact of the conduct on the victim and on public confidence in the profession.

27. Mr Barnfield submitted that sexual misconduct is a serious matter and that registrants are expected to act with integrity and decency at all times. He submitted that the public are entitled to rely on the regulator to act in a manner which is robust, fair and transparent.

28. Mr Barnfield submitted that the sentence imposed by the criminal court, namely a community order, reflects the criminal court’s assessment but does not determine the regulatory outcome.

29. Mr Barnfield made reference to the Sanctions Policy, which he submitted states that sexual misconduct or sexually motivated misconduct is a very serious matter which may have a significant impact on public confidence in the profession.

30. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Registrant’s conduct amounts to a breach of Standard 9.1, namely the obligation to justify the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. The behaviour was said to fall far below the standards expected of a registrant.

31. Mr Barnfield invited the Panel to consider the wider public interest. In particular, whether a finding of no impairment would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process. It was submitted that the Panel must take into account the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and to maintain public confidence when determining impairment.

Registrant’s submissions

32. On behalf of the Registrant, it was submitted that the Panel’s task is to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, applying a forward‑looking assessment.

33. Ms Stannard submitted that the conduct leading to the conviction occurred on 18 November 2023 and that there has now been a significant passage of time. The Panel was taken through the timeline and with reference to the Registrant’s bundle to demonstrate the Registrant’s remorse, reflection and remediation.

34. Ms Stannard submitted that the Registrant informed his employer of the incident the following day and underwent a risk assessment. He was permitted to return to work, with the outcome that he did not present a risk to colleagues or service users. Safeguards were implemented and the Registrant has complied with those measures. He self‑referred to the HCPC on 1 December 2023. It was submitted that the HCPC’s decision not to impose an interim order indicates that, at that time, the Registrant was not considered to pose a risk requiring restriction of practice.

35. Ms Stannard submitted that since the incident, the Registrant has continued to work for a prolonged period without restriction or concern raised. He has completed his sentence, which included a 12‑month community order, 80 hours of unpaid work, and a financial penalty. It was submitted that this was not a lenient sentence but was in line with the relevant sentencing guidelines.

36. Ms Stannard acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, namely sexual assault. However, it was submitted that the incident amounted to an assault over clothing, was short lived, occurred outside the workplace, and did not involve any abuse of a professional position or breach of trust in a clinical setting, being over within seconds.

37. Ms Stannard made reference to the sentencing remarks, in which the offending was described as a one‑off incident of poor judgement, out of character, with a low risk of reoffending.

38. Ms Stannard submitted that the Registrant has no previous history of misconduct or criminal offending. In contextual terms, it was submitted that the incident occurred following a difficult personal period, including a family bereavement and other stressors, and involved alcohol consumption which the Registrant has since ceased.

39. Ms Stannard submitted that the Registrant has demonstrated remediation. He completed the requirements of his sentence promptly, wrote a letter of apology to the victim, and undertook relevant continuing professional development, including approximately 24 hours of learning relating to the offending. He has produced reflective material evidencing his understanding of informed consent, professional and personal boundaries, and the impact of his actions.

40. Ms Stannard submitted that his employer has continued to support him. Risk assessments undertaken by his employer, including one approximately 19 months after the incident and a further assessment in May 2026, assess his overall risk as low. He remains in employment and has continued to practise without issue. Ms Stannard referred to the positive letter from his probation officer which was produced in support of his application for an enhanced DBS check.
 
41. Ms Stannard directed the Panel to testimonials contained in the bundle, including from a former director and line manager, who describe the Registrant as trustworthy, professional, and committed. Patient feedback is described as consistently high. Colleagues, including female colleagues, report that they feel comfortable working with him and consider the incident to be out of character.

42. It was submitted that there have been no further concerns, no repetition of the behaviour, and no suggestion of ongoing risk. The Registrant has taken steps to mitigate any risk, including abstaining from alcohol and avoiding environments in which such behaviour might arise. He has demonstrated insight and has accepted responsibility for his actions.

43. In relation to the wider public interest, Ms Stannard submitted that the conviction should not be viewed in isolation but in its full context. A fully informed member of the public, aware of the steps taken by the Registrant, the absence of repetition, the passage of time, and his continued safe practice, would not consider that a finding of impairment is required.

44. In conclusion, Ms Stannard submitted that this was an isolated incident, now nearly three years old, in respect of which the Registrant has completed his sentence, fully engaged with probation, reflected on the underlying causes, and accepted responsibility. She submitted that the risk of repetition is low and that, at the time of the offence, no Interim Order was imposed by the HCPC. It was therefore argued that it would be illogical to conclude that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired.

Legal Advice 

45. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Conviction and Caution Allegations’ (dated September 2024), ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ (dated August 2025) and ‘Drafting Fitness to Practise Decisions’ dated January 2026. The following case law was also referenced:  of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Meadow v GMC [2007] 1 WB 462, Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32,  Cohen v GMC (2008) EWHC 581 (Admin) and Professional Standards Authority v (1) The Health and Care Professions Council (2) Benedict Doree  [2017] EWCA Civ 319.

Decision on impairment
 
46. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel had close regard to the HCPTS guidance, and took into account all the written and oral evidence before it, to consider whether the Registrant has the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively.

47. In its consideration of impairment, the Panel had regard to the factors identified by Dame Janet Smith in her 5th Shipman Report and cited in CHRE v (1) NMC and (2) Grant (“Grant”). The Panel considered whether:

a- The Registrant has in the past and/or is liable in the future to place service users at unwarranted risk of harm.

b- The Registrant has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute.

c- The Registrant has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.

48. In relation to harm, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct did not place service users at unwarranted risk of harm. However, the Panel found that the conduct did cause emotional harm to a member of the public, namely the victim. In reaching this view, the Panel took into account the sentencing judge’s remarks that ‘she has been affected by what you did, it affects her ability to enjoy nights out, fearing that this type of assault may happen again’.

49. In relation to whether the Registrant has in the past brought the profession into disrepute, the Panel determined that he had. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel had regard to the public interest in upholding proper standards of behaviour and maintaining public confidence in the profession. The Panel found that the sexual conduct for which the Registrant was convicted brought the profession into disrepute.

50. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, which were in effect from January 2016 to 31 August 2024. Standard 9 relates to ‘Personal and professional behaviour’ and Standard 9.1 requires HCPC registered professionals to ‘…make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.’

51. The Panel considered that compliance with the law and maintaining appropriate personal conduct, including refraining from sexual misconduct, are fundamental tenets of professional practice. It is integral to the profession that service users and the wider public have confidence in their safety. The Panel concluded that, by committing a sexual assault, albeit at the lower end of seriousness, and receiving a criminal conviction, the Registrant breached fundamental tenets of the profession and undermined public trust and confidence.

52. The Panel considered the personal component of impairment and in doing so had regard to the extent to which the conviction, and the conduct underlying that conviction, can be, and has been, remediated by the Registrant and whether it is likely to be repeated.

53. The Panel kept in mind that concerns that may raise questions of character may be harder to remediate. However, in certain circumstances such concerns are capable of being remedied providing that sufficient insight, reflection and remediation can be evidenced.

54. The Panel considered the Registrant’s oral evidence that the incident was isolated and wholly out of character. The Panel noted that this account was supported by other evidence within the bundle, which indicated that the conduct represented a lapse of judgement and was out of character for the Registrant. The Panel noted the sentencing judge’s remarks, as follows:

‘I do accept that this was an opportunistic offence committed whilst under the influence of alcohol. Whilst that is an aggravating feature, I also accept that this was a one-off display of poor judgment on your part. I agree with you through the presentence report that this is out of character and that you are unlikely to offend…You are a hardworking, highly valued employee and a man of previous good character. This latter feature is very important mitigating material so far as you are concerned, especially in light of my conclusion that this was out of character for you, but it is also a tragedy that at your age you have thrown away your good name in the way that you have.’

55. The Panel considered the judge’s remarks alongside the positive testimonials from work colleagues, including female colleagues who have worked alongside the Registrant for some time. The Panel considered that this evidence supported the conclusion that the conduct was out of character and, on that basis, determined that it is capable of remediation.

56. The Panel carefully considered the level of insight demonstrated by the Registrant in relation to his offending. It had regard to his oral evidence and reflective statement within the bundle. The Panel found that the reflection was comprehensive. Whilst the Registrant had pleaded not guilty at trial, the Panel noted that he has since fully accepted the conviction and acknowledged that he slapped the victim on her clothed bottom. The Panel considered that the reflection demonstrated insight into the impact of his conduct on the victim, as well as on the wider public and the reputation of the profession. The Panel further found that this insight had developed since the offence and noted that the Registrant had written a letter of apology to the victim of his own volition. The Panel also took into account steps taken to address the underlying issues, including his self-reported abstinence from alcohol and avoidance of late-night entertainment venues. The Panel accepted his evidence that he has recently become a father and that his focus is now on his family.

57. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s completion of a two‑hour online course on Professionalism and Professional Standards for HCPC‑regulated Health and Care Professionals. The Panel did not consider that this, of itself, amounted to sufficient remediation, given the nature of the conduct. The Panel considered that such conduct could not be adequately addressed through the completion of a course alone.

58. The Panel concluded that remediation was instead demonstrated through the Registrant’s reflective work, his acceptance of responsibility, and his subsequent conduct, including the demonstration of remorse and safe and continued practice. The Panel also noted his full compliance with, and completion of, his community order within two months.

59. The Panel further noted that colleagues, who were aware of the circumstances of the conviction, continued to support the Registrant and described him as consistently demonstrating ‘honesty, kindness, integrity and responsibility’.

60. The Panel considered whether there remains a risk of repetition of the conduct which led to the Registrant’s conviction. In doing so, it had regard to its findings that the Registrant has developed insight, demonstrated remorse, and taken steps to remediate his conduct.

61. The Panel placed weight on the positive and supportive report from the Registrant’s probation officer dated 8 August 2025, prepared in the context of a DBS Safety Check Inquiry. The Panel noted that probation officers are trained in risk assessment and that the report was prepared with full knowledge of the offence. The report states, in part:

‘Throughout the duration of his probation, Mr. Sharif demonstrated consistent compliance. He attended all scheduled appointments, engaged constructively in discussions, and maintained a cooperative and respectful attitude. His conduct reflected a genuine commitment to fulfilling the terms of his supervision…
Given his professional background and the positive engagement he has shown throughout his supervision period, Mr. Sharif has presented himself as a responsible and trustworthy individual.’

62. Having concluded that the Registrant accepts that his behaviour fell below professional standards, understands how and why it occurred and its impact on those affected, and has taken steps to address the underlying issues, the Panel determined that the risk of repetition is low.

63. The Panel concluded that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired.

64. In relation to the public component, the Panel noted from the guidance that the key question to be answered here is:

‘given the nature of the allegation and the facts found proved, would public confidence in the profession and how it is regulated be undermined if there were to be no finding of impairment?’

65. The Panel carefully considered whether, given the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the conviction, public confidence in the profession and in its regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment. It also considered whether it would be failing to uphold and declare proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

66. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant’s relatively recent conviction for sexual assault, which was aggravated by alcohol and caused emotional harm to the victim, represents a serious departure from the standards expected. The public is entitled to expect registrants to act with decency and integrity, and this conduct constituted a significant breach of that expectation.

67. The Panel concluded that a finding of impairment is required in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and its regulator, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

68. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component.

Sanction

69. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Barnfield who did not invite a specific sanction but directed the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, March 2026 (“the Policy”)

70. Mr Barnfield submitted that this was a serious criminal offence, namely a sexual assault. He submitted that the conduct was demeaning and offensive and had a clear impact on the complainant, as reflected in the sentencing remarks.

71. Mr Barnfield submitted that such conduct creates an inherent risk to public confidence and risks undermining professional standards. He submitted that sexual offences carry a wider risk, in that they may deter individuals from seeking healthcare and thereby directly engages the public confidence in the profession. 

72. Mr Barnfield referred to specific sections of the Policy in relation to criminal convictions and sexual misconduct. 

73. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Panel may consider that the incident was short-lived and isolated, although it was a deliberate act, being opportunistic whilst the Registrant was intoxicated.

74. Mr Barnfield reminded the Panel that the Registrant is subject to a statutory notification requirement until February 2030. He submitted that this is a statutory consequence of conviction not a matter of judicial discretion. He submitted that the Panel must have regard to it but it must not be determinative of sanction. In respect of the discretionary sentence which was community service, the Panel can take into account that his has now been completed. 

75. Mr Barnfield referred to the cases of:

• CHRE v GDC and Fleishmann [2005] EWHC 87

• PSA v Patel [2024] EWHC 243 (Admin)

• Obukofe v GMC [2014] EWHC 408 

76. Mr Barnfield submitted that the Patel clarifies that Fleischmann is not a rigid rule and that panels may impose proportionate restrictions depending on circumstances. He submitted that the case law serves as a helpful reminder to put paragraph 129 into context, and that it would not be right for the Panel to base its decision on sanction on the Registrant’s 5 year notification period. 

77. Ms Stannard submitted that the requirements of notification are imposed by statute and it is not within the judges discretion. She submitted that the judge in the Registrant’s case had called the matter back before the court to consider whether there was anything he could do to remove the reporting requirements. Counsel in the criminal case had conducted research but concluded that there was no judicial discretion, and that the reporting requirements were automatic as per the statute.

78. Ms Stannard asked the Panel to take the following into account:

• Sentence completed and concluded within approximately two months. 

• Insight demonstrated (including reflections and apologies).

• No previous findings and an otherwise good professional record.

• He has been working unrestricted.

• The Incident was isolated.

• No physical injury caused.

• The Panel has found no current risk to the public.

79. Ms Stannard submitted that the most appropriate and proportionate order would be a Caution Order. She submitted that there is low risk of repetition and the Registrant has shown insight and remediation. This order would mark the seriousness of the conviction but not restrict practice unnecessarily, bearing in mind he is the sole breadwinner. 

80. Ms Stannard submitted that conditions of practice are not appropriate as there is no ongoing risk to the public. 

81. Ms Stannard submitted a Suspension Order or Strike Off would be disproportionate given the level of insight and remediation and his willingness to resolve the issues.

82. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the Panel was referred to the Policy. The Legal Assessor advised that the purpose of any sanction is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have a punitive effect. Sanctions are imposed for the purpose of protecting the public, maintaining trust and confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding professional standards. The Panel was advised that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the case. The Panel was referred to the cases of CHRE v GDC & Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 and PSA v GDC & Patel [2024] EWHC 243, concerning a Registrant’s return to practice whilst subject to criminal sanction. The Panel was advised that Fleischmann cannot be applied as if it were a rule; both it and the general principle derived from the Sanctions Policy must bend to the overarching requirement to impose a sanction which is just, proportionate and only that which is necessary to maintain public confidence.

Decision on Sanction

83. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality by weighing the Registrant’s interests with the public interest and by considering each available sanction in ascending order of severity. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in determining what sanction, if any, to impose.

84. In relation to the aggravating factors the Panel had regard to paragraph 70 of the policy which sets out that ‘Aggravating factors are any features of a case which increase the seriousness of the concerns.’ The Panel did not identify any discrete aggravating factors, noting that the seriousness of the case is adequately reflected in the nature of the conviction for sexual assault itself.

85. In relation to mitigation, the Panel had regard to its findings at the impairment stage, including those relating to insight, remorse and remediation. The Panel found that the Registrant has demonstrated genuine insight, as evidenced by his timely remorse, apology and steps taken to remediate his conduct following conviction. This included a letter of apology to the victim, sent of his own volition. The Panel treated these matters as mitigating factors.

86. In considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the Panel had regard to the need to assess the seriousness of the issues arising in the case, and in particular to the ‘Serious Cases’ section of the Policy. The Panel found that this is a serious case, as it involves a criminal conviction for a sexual offence. However, it did not consider the case to fall at the upper end of seriousness, noting that the incident was short‑lived and isolated, arising from a one‑off lapse in judgment.

87. The Panel started by considering the least restrictive sanction first, working upwards only where necessary. It noted that the final sanction should be proportionate and will therefore be the minimum action required to protect the public and uphold the public interest. It took into account paragraph 13 of the Policy which states:

‘The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public. This includes consideration of: • 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.’

88. The Panel kept in mind that, whilst it had found no personal impairment and therefore no risk to the public in the Registrant’s practice, it had found public impairment. This engaged the wider factors identified at paragraph 13 under the overarching objective of protecting the public.

89. Due to the serious nature of a criminal conviction for sexual assault, the Panel considered that referring the case for mediation or taking no further action would be insufficient to uphold the public interest.

90. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would be appropriate. The Panel considered its earlier decision on impairment. It noted that it had found the Registrant to have shown good insight and that he had undertaken appropriate remediation, such that it was satisfied that there was a low risk of repetition. 

91. However, the Panel considered that a Caution Order would not be appropriate when considering the Policy which states: ‘A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which: the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature.’

92. Whilst the conviction and the events underlying it are isolated and limited, the Panel did not consider the conviction itself to be relatively minor in nature. The conviction is for a sexual assault, which caused emotional harm to a victim, and for which the Registrant received a medium length community sentence. In reaching its decision that the conviction cannot be considered minor in nature, it had regard to paragraph 117 of the Policy noting that sexual misconduct is a serious matter that has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession.

93. In the circumstances the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conviction was too serious for a Caution Order.

94. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel noted that whilst many of the bullet points in paragraph 153 are applicable in this case, the nature of the conviction is that it relates to his conduct outside of work and not his clinical competency or practice. As such the Panel considered that it would not be possible to formulate appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions which would meet the public interest elements of the overarching objective. 

95. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Policy states: ‘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… Where a panel is considering suspension orders, it should first consider whether the conduct found proven indicates behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.’

96. Whilst a conviction, particularly one for a sexual assault, will always be considered serious, the Panel had careful regard to the context and nature of the assault, and the good level insight, remediation and remorse the Registrant has shown as already outlined in this decision. It reminded itself of its findings at impairment that this was an isolated and brief incident, in which the Registrant displayed conduct that was out of character. Prior to the conviction he was of good character and in accordance with the employer’s evidence, he continues to be a hardworking, highly valued employee, in his HCPC registered role. Having regard to all the circumstances, as outlined above, the Panel did not consider this behaviour to be fundamentally incompatible with registration. 

97. The Panel had regard to paragraph 129 which states:

‘Inclusion on a sex offenders’ database serves to protect the public from those who have committed certain types of offences. A panel should normally regard allowing a registrant to remain in, or return to, unrestricted practice while they are on a sex offenders’ database as incompatible with the HCPC’s obligation to protect the public and likely lead to strike off.’

98. The Panel had regard to the fact that the Registrant is subject to ‘automatic’ notification requirements on the sex offenders register for a period of five years, as reflected in the sentencing remarks. It nevertheless distinguished this case from those envisaged by paragraph 129 of the Policy, as it did not consider that the public require protection from the Registrant. The judge assessed the Registrant as ‘unlikely to offend’ again, and his probation officer described him as a ‘responsible and trustworthy individual’. Consistent with those assessments, the Panel found a low risk of repetition and no personal impairment. In those circumstances, and in imposing a sanction that is just, proportionate and no more than necessary to maintain public confidence, the Panel concluded that the conduct was not incompatible with continued registration. 

99. The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would be appropriate as the Registrant has developed insight into his conduct, he has demonstrated remediation and the issues are unlikely to be repeated. It therefore considered that a suspension would be appropriate in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards.

100. The Panel had regard to paragraph 174 and noted that short-term suspensions can be appropriate in cases where there is no ongoing risk of harm, but where a more severe sanction is required in order to maintain public confidence in the health and care profession. The Panel considered that based on its findings, the Registrant’s case falls squarely within this guidance.
 
101. The Panel therefore decided that a one-month Suspension Order should be imposed. The Panel decided this would be the appropriate length taking into account the level of insight and remorse shown, whilst balanced against the need to maintain public confidence and send a clear message that conduct of this nature is not acceptable behaviour. The Panel considered that a one-month suspension would also take into account and balance the public interest in allowing a competent and experienced practitioner to be allowed to practise.

102. The Panel decided that any duration longer than one month would be punitive and would not be proportionate taking into account all it had read and heard about the Registrant’s personal interests. The Panel considered that a period of one month suspension would not de-skill the Registrant from his evident proficiency as a Hearing Aid Dispenser.

103. The Panel did move on to consider whether this was a case that would more properly merit a striking-off order, taking into account paragraph 179 of the Policy. Whilst the Registrant’s conviction, is serious, it is mitigated by its isolated context and by the extent of insight and remorse shown by the Registrant since the conviction. It was not persistent or deliberate, but rather opportunistic and an example of poor judgment. In those circumstances, the Panel considered a Striking-Off Order would be unduly punitive in this case.

104. The Panel considered that the conviction in this case was such that the requirements of public protection would be adequately served by imposing a one-month Suspension Order.

105. The Panel had regard to proportionality and balanced the public interest against the Registrant’s interests. The Panel took into account the consequential personal, financial and professional impact a Suspension Order may have upon the Registrant but concluded that these considerations are outweighed by the Panel’s duty to give priority to the public interest.

106. The Panel was aware that the Suspension Order will need to be reviewed by a reviewing panel in accordance with Article 30(1) of the Health Profession Order 2001 and that the Registrant is required to be provided with 28 days notice of the review hearing. 

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Afzaal Sharif for a period of one month from the date that this Order comes into effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Afzaal Sharif