William Smethurst

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel considered whether service of this hearing had been effected on the Registrant in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on “Service of Documents”.

2. The service bundle provided to the Panel contained evidence that the Notice of Hearing, which set out that the review hearing would take place remotely on 5 June 2026, was sent to the Registrant’s registered email address on 22 April 2026. An email delivery notification has been provided in the service bundle confirming that the email was delivered on the same date. The Panel noted that the Registrant had responded to the email.

3. The Panel was therefore satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with the Procedure Rules and Practice Note on Service of Documents.

Adjournment application

4. By email to the HCPC of 4 June 2026 at 5.20pm, which was forwarded to the Panel at 9.58am on 5 June 2026, two minutes before the hearing was due to commence, the Registrant set out the following: 

“Unfortunately I have found great difficulty affording any representation. I did have someone in place but they have had to pull out due to ill health at short notice. I request that the hearing be rescheduled until such a time as I can put in place representation. I do apologise for the late response but I have only just been informed. If you are unable to reschedule then please go ahead without me as I wouldn't dare to face the dragons again alone.”

5. The Panel considered this email request to “reschedule” to be a request by the Registrant for an adjournment of the hearing.

6. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Slack opposed the application for an adjournment. Mr Slack set out that the existing suspension order was due to expire in two weeks’ time on 19 June 2026 and that this would leave insufficient time for adequate notice to be provided for any rearranged hearing. Mr Slack stressed that the Registrant had been served with notice of today’s hearing and had been provided with an opportunity to attend.

7. The Panel received and accepted legal advice.
 
8. The Panel was mindful that it had a statutory obligation to conduct fitness to practise proceedings expeditiously. It noted that adjournment requests should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and should not be granted without good and compelling reasons.

9. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s request for an adjournment was based on the poor health of his representative. The Panel noted that no information had been provided about the identity of the representative, nor any communication from him or her. Further, that there was no medical evidence provided to explain why the representative could not attend. The Panel was mindful, however, that the Registrant may well not be in receipt of any medical evidence relating to his representative.

10. The Panel had regard to the factors derived from the decision in CPS v Picton. The Panel noted in particular that there is a general need for expedition in the conduct of proceedings but that in these particular circumstances there is also a pressing need for expedition as the existing order was due to expire in two weeks’ time. The Panel noted that, were the hearing to be adjourned, there would be insufficient time for another hearing to be arranged prior to the expiry of the order. The Panel was mindful that this would potentially have an impact on public protection.
  
11. The Panel balanced on the other hand the fact that, if the hearing were to go ahead, the Registrant would not be able to fully present his case. The Panel also noted, however, that the Registrant had set out in his email that if the hearing could not be rescheduled then it should go ahead without him.

12. Having balanced all of the circumstances, the Panel considered the overarching aim of protecting the public and, noting that the suspension order was due to expire in two weeks’ time, decided this outweighed any prejudice to the Registrant and so they would refuse the adjournment and continue with the hearing.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

13. Having refused the adjournment request, the Panel then considered whether in any event it should use its discretion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

14. In considering the use of its discretion, the Panel considered all of the circumstances including the need to be fair to the Registrant. The Panel considered the submissions made by Mr Slack for the HCPC who submitted that the Panel should proceed in the absence of the Registrant as he had been effectively served with notice of the hearing and therefore been given the opportunity to attend.   

15. The Panel received and accepted advice from the Legal Assessor and noted the guidance provided in the Practice Note ‘Review of Article 30 orders”, in particular paragraph 10 which sets out: “Article 30(9) of the Order provides that, before a Panel exercises its powers under Article 30(1) or (2), the registrant concerned must be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the Panel, in accordance with the relevant Panel rules.”

16. The Panel noted that it had already accepted that the HCPC had served the Registrant with notice of the hearing.

17. The Panel considered the Registrant’s email of 4 June 2026 and formed a view that the Registrant, not having obtained an adjournment, had voluntarily absented himself from the review hearing. The Panel further noted that this was a mandatory review and considered that it would not be in the interests of the public for it to be delayed. 

18. The Panel therefore exercised its discretion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

Privacy

19. The Panel was mindful that an application for privacy had not been made by the HCPC or by the Registrant. [Readcted]. Mr Slack set out that the HCPC would not oppose any consideration of holding the hearing partially in private.

20. In considering whether the hearing should be held partially in private, the Panel considered guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”.

21. The Panel noted that the starting position is that hearings should be administered in public in line with the principle of open justice and to comply with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

22. However, Article 6(1) of the ECHR sets out the circumstances where this general presumption may be rebutted, and where a review may be considered in private. This includes instances where it would be necessary for the protection of the private life of a relevant party.

23. The Panel considered that it would be appropriate, proportionate, and in keeping with the open justice principle for this review to be conducted partially in private [Redacted]. 

Background

24. The Panel took the following background summary from the first substantive review on 28 March 2025:

1) The Registrant was employed as a Band 7 Radiographer in the Computed Tomography (“CT”) department at Blackpool Victoria Hospital (“the Hospital”) within Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) from December 2020. 

2) The referral relates to a number of concerns raised anonymously with the Registrant’s employer about his conduct which led to an internal investigation. During the course of that investigation, two photographs were provided to the investigator via the Trust’s Freedom to Stand Up Guardian. Each of the photographs showed a male, dressed in burgundy scrubs in two of the Hospital’s clinical room, exposing his genitals. It is alleged that taking the photographs was sexually motivated. 

3) On 23 June 2022, the Registrant was interviewed in relation to the allegations. When asked whether he had taken any sexually explicit photographs at work, the Registrant denied having done so “to his knowledge”. The photographs were then provided to the Registrant, who only then admitted that they were of him. It is alleged that the Registrant’s denial was dishonest. 

4) The Trust initiated an investigation into the Registrant’s conduct and the Registrant was referred to the HCPC on 1 September 2022.
 
5) The panel at the substantive hearing in May and June 2024 found the Allegation proved, found misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise and it imposed a sanction of a nine month Suspension Order. 

6) The panel at the substantive hearing made the following findings in relation to impairment of fitness to practice: 

“The Panel considered the Registrant’s taking of the photographs was a pre- meditated deliberate act for his own sexual motivation. The Panel has determined that this occurred on two occasions on two different locations and had the potential to cause emotional harm to colleagues and service users. The Registrant’s conduct only came to light when concerns were raised anonymously, and copies of the photographs sent to the Trust. The Panel further determined that the Registrant’s misconduct in taking the photographs was compounded by his deliberate dishonesty in denying that he had taken them. The Panel has determined that he denied taking the photographs for his own benefit, as he was unaware that the Trust had copies of the photographs and by his denial sought to have the concerns found not proved.

The Panel considered that the misconduct in taking the explicit photographs for sexual motivation was serious, had the potential to cause emotional harm to colleagues and service users, but was remediable. However, the Panel considered that other than refer to the nature of the relationship he was then in and that it was common place to take explicit photographs, the Registrant had failed to address why he deliberately chose to take such photographs whilst on duty, in uniform and in clinical areas on two occasions. The Panel determined that the Registrant sought to minimise his action and had not demonstrated insight into the potential harm to colleagues and service users that could result from such conduct. The Panel further determined that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate full insight into the nature and extent of his conduct found proved in Particulars 1 and 2 or the consequences of his conduct on service users, colleagues and public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator. In these circumstances, the Panel also determined that the Registrant had demonstrated minimal insight into the core elements of the misconduct found proved in Particulars 1 and 2, had not remediated this misconduct and there remained a likelihood of similar misconduct in the future.
 
The Panel further determined that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct as found proved in particulars 3 and 4 was pre-meditated, that he had sought to deny the primary allegation and that his position before the Panel in respect of Particulars 3 and 4 was a blatant and manufactured lie. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was serious, albeit not at the most serious end of the scale of dishonesty. As such the Panel determined that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was remediable, albeit with some difficulty…the Panel concluded that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate any significant insight into the nature and extent of his dishonest conduct or the consequences of his dishonest conduct on colleagues and public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator. In these circumstances, the Panel determined that the Registrant had not remediated his dishonest conduct and there remained a likelihood of similar dishonest conduct being repeated in the future. 

The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant was currently impaired in relation to the personal component…The Panel determined that given the nature of the Registrant’s misconduct involving taking explicit photographs whilst on duty, in uniform in a clinical area for sexual motivation and his subsequent dishonesty, that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant was currently impaired in relation to the public component. 

The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired both in respect of the personal and public components”.  

7) The panel at the substantive hearing found as follows in respect of sanction:
 
“The Panel had decided that the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The Panel has found that the Registrant has shown limited insight into the regulatory concerns arising from the sexually motivated taking of explicit pictures at work. The Panel considered that there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy these failings. The Panel considered that, at this time the Registrant had failed to demonstrate insight into his dishonest conduct and the regulatory concerns arising from it. However, the Panel also considered that there remained the possibility of the Registrant reflecting on the Panel’s decision and developing such insight. The Panel considered that if the Registrant developed such insight, then he would be likely to be able to resolve or remedy these failings. The Panel has also concluded that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct is not at the most serious end of the scale of dishonest conduct. 

In all these circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would address the regulatory concerns identified, reflect the seriousness of the case and address the issues of public protection and public interest”.

Previous review hearings

25. A first review hearing took place on 28 March 2025. The panel at that hearing extended the suspension order for a further 12 months.

26. A further review hearing took place on 15 April 2026. On that date the panel were not satisfied that the Registrant had been adequately served with notice of the hearing, and as such extended the order for just two months to enable service to be effected and for another review hearing to be arranged. That was subsequently arranged for today, 5 June 2026.

Submissions to the Panel

Submissions from the HCPC

27. On behalf of the HCPC, Mr Slack gave a summary of the background to this matter and invited the Panel to extend the existing suspension order by a further 4 months.

28. Mr Slack drew the Panel’s attention to the fact that the original panel had found that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired by reason of misconduct and by dishonesty. Mr Slack submitted that since the substantive hearing in 2024, the Registrant has had very limited engagement with the HCPC and has failed to show full insight.

29. Mr Slack noted that previous panels had set out for the Registrant what he might do to show insight and reflection including providing evidence of any continuing professional development and making an apology but that there was no evidence that the Registrant had engaged with these suggestions.

30. On Slack did accept, however, that the fact the Registrant had contacted the HCPC by email on 4 June 2026 indicated that he may now be prepared to engage with the proceedings.

31. Mr Slack submitted that a further suspension order for a period of 4 months would give the Registrant time to engage with the proceedings, take action on some of the recommendations that have been made by previous panels as to how he might demonstrate any insight and remediation, and attend a future hearing.

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant

32. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented. No submissions were received from the Registrant for the hearing. [Redacted].

Legal Assessor’s Advice

33. The Legal Assessor set out that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 and that there is a necessity for all Article 30 sanction orders to be reviewed prior to the date on which they expire.

34. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to:

1) extend, or further extend the period for which the order has effect;  

2) make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made; 
  
3) replace the suspension order with a conditions of practice order; or

4) replace the suspension order with a striking off order.

35. The Panel was reminded that the review process is not a mechanism for appealing against or ‘going behind’ the original finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired. Rather, the purpose of the review is to consider:

1) whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and 

2) if so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public. 

36. The Legal Assessor set out that the key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed and that the reviewing Panel’s task “is to consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment...[have] been sufficiently addressed” - Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 (Admin). There is a ‘persuasive burden’ on the Registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that he has fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and has addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”.  

37. The Panel was reminded that the overarching objective of the HCPC is the protection of the public and that they need to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired through that lens. This is not about punishment.

Decision

38. The Panel considered all of the evidence in the 79-page bundle and the oral submissions made by Mr Slack on behalf of the HCPC. 

Fitness to Practise

39. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

40. In considering this, the Panel identified the reasons why the final hearing panel decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in 2024, and considered whether all or any of those reasons had been satisfactorily addressed by the Registrant.
  
41. The Panel was mindful of what fitness to practise means – that a registrant has the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely and effectively. The Panel was mindful that there are two broad components when considering fitness to practice:

a. the ‘personal’ component: the current competence, behaviour etc. of the registrant concerned; and 

b. the ‘public’ component: the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession.

42. The Panel noted that the previous finding of impairment was based on misconduct and a finding of dishonesty and that the Registrant’s fitness to practice had been found to be impaired on both the personal and public components.

43. The Panel noted that it had no evidence before it as to whether the Registrant had recognised the seriousness of the findings, whether he had any insight into the deficiencies or whether he has taken any action to address them. The Panel noted in particular that this was the case despite previous panels clearly setting out what the Registrant could do to demonstrate his remediation.

44. The Panel found that the Registrant had not discharged the ‘persuasive burden’ to show that he has addressed the impairment. On that basis, the Panel found that the Registrant remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

Sanction

45. Having found that the Registrant remains impaired the Panel next considered what sanction to impose. In reaching its decision it was mindful of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and any aggravating and mitigating factors.

46. The Panel found that aggravating features included a continuing lack of evidence of insight and remorse, a lack of apology and acknowledgement of impact on the reputation of the profession, and a failure to provide any evidence of continuing professional development to maintain skills and knowledge.  

47. [Redacted]. The Panel was also mindful that no clinical or competency concerns had been raised about the Registrant.

48. The Panel considered the possible sanctions in order from the least serious to the most serious.

49. It first considered whether it would be appropriate to take no action or to impose a caution order. The Panel considered that either of these options would fail to reflect the seriousness of the findings and the associated risks of harm, would fail to protect the public and fail to maintain public confidence in the profession.

50. The Panel next considered whether it would be appropriate to allow the suspension order to expire and to instead impose conditions of practice. The Panel noted that the Registrant has not shown any insight into the findings made in 2024 and so considered that conditions of practice would not be appropriate. The Panel further noted that in any event, the concerns about the Registrant do not relate to any clinical concerns but rather to findings of dishonesty and concerns which are attitudinal in nature. The Panel considered that it would not be practicable to seek to address these concerns by way of conditions of practice. 
 
51. The Panel next considered an extension of the existing Suspension Order. The Panel’s view is that the misconduct and dishonesty of the Registrant is serious but is remediable if the Registrant is able to engage with the proceedings, show insight and reflection. The Panel considered that suspension remains the appropriate sanction.  

52. The Panel was mindful that it had the power today to impose a strike off order. The Panel noted that a strike off order may well be made where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, where a registrant fails to address a lack of competence (for example, due to not attempting to engage with any remediation) or where a registrant is unwilling to resolve matters.

53. The Panel after consideration did not consider that a strike off was appropriate today on the basis that the Registrant’s email of 4 June 2026 showed some indication that the Registrant is willing to engage.

54. The Panel therefore concluded that the appropriate sanction is a period of further suspension.

55. The Panel considered that in all the circumstances it was appropriate to impose a further period of 4 months suspension and this will continue to protect the public and wider public interest whilst potentially allowing for the Registrant to engage with the proceedings and demonstrate his fitness to practice.

56. In reaching its decision, the Panel was mindful of the need for the decision to be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection.

57. The Panel considered that it would likely greatly assist a future reviewing panel if the Registrant would:

• attend the next review hearing whether or not he secures representation; 

• provide written, reflective evidence demonstrating his insight, remorse and a clear acknowledgement and understanding of the impact of his misconduct on colleagues, the profession and the public; and 

• provide evidence of any continuing professional development to maintain skills and knowledge;

• provide any explanation or information as to why he has not engaged with the HCPC or the fitness to practice proceedings over the past two years. [Redacted].

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of William Smethurst for a further period of 4 months on the expiry of the existing Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 19 June 2026. This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 19 October 2026. 

History of Hearings for William Smethurst