​​Hugo Barroso​

Preliminary Matters:

The Registrant’s response to the Allegation

1.    When given an opportunity of responding to the Allegation, on behalf of the Registrant, Dr Mulligan stated that each element of the conviction (that is to say the entirety of Particular 1) was admitted.

2.    The Panel, acknowledging that it had a discretion whether to accept the Registrant’s admission as proving Particular 1, decided that it should accept that admission.  The factual elements of the case being proven, the remainder of the first stage of the hearing was concerned solely with the question of whether the established conviction is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

Conducting the hearing partially in private

3.    Before the Presenting Officer opened the case, Dr Mulligan informed the Panel that in the presentation of the Registrant’s case there would be mention of both his health and of family matters.  When offered the opportunity to make representations on behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer stated that she did not wish to do so.

4.    Having taken the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel concluded that it would conduct those parts of the hearing during which there would be mention of the Registrant’s health or family in private.  The Panel was satisfied that such a direction was necessary to protect the Registrant’s private life.

Background:

5.    The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Practitioner Psychologist.  He is employed as a Clinical Psychologist by the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”), having commenced that employment in July 2021.

6.    On 10 August 2023, the Registrant referred himself to the HCPC.  By his referral he disclosed that he had been charged with the offence of theft specified in Particular 1(a) of the Allegation.

7.    The circumstances relating to the criminal offences were as follows:

•    On 30 May 2023, the Registrant found a mobile telephone in a lavatory cubicle in the Middleton Arena.  Included in the mobile telephone case was a Mastercard.

•    The same day, the Registrant used the Mastercard to buy in different stores a toaster and a PlayStation controller.

•    The Registrant was arrested on 29 July 2023.

•    The Registrant pleaded guilty to the three offences with which he was charged (and which are specified in Particulars 1(a), (b) and (c)).  The sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was a fine of £438.00.  The total of the financial penalty resulting from the convictions was £698.00.

8.    An internal Trust disciplinary process concluded on 4 March 2024 and resulted in a finding of gross misconduct (on the basis that the behaviour had the potential to bring the Trust into disrepute) and the issuing of a first and final written warning which was directed to remain on the Registrant’s record for 12 months.

Submissions made to the Panel on impairment of fitness to practise

9.    On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of both the personal and public components.  She submitted that his behaviour fell far short of what should be expected of a registered health professional, breaching, as it did, Standards 9.1 and 9.2 of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.  With regard to the personal component, she submitted that the issue was one of behaviour that could be categorised as attitudinal and behavioural, and for that reason was conduct that would be hard to remediate.  She urged the Panel to consider whether it could be said that the Registrant had sufficient insight to result in a finding that he had achieved full remediation.  With regard to the public component, the Presenting Officer submitted that the matter was so serious, public confidence in the Registrant’s profession and the regulation of it would be diminished were there to be no finding of current impairment of fitness to practise.

10.    The bundle of documents that had been provided to the Panel in advance of the hearing included some 90 pages that had been provided by the Registrant.  It is not intended to refer extensively to these documents, but it is relevant to indicate that they included:

•    An Occupational Health Report dated 10 October 2023.
•    A letter from the Registrant’s clinical supervisor.
•    Two reflective statements prepared by the Registrant – one headed “Offence”, the other, “Impact on Profession and Public Confidence”.

•    Character references.
•    Training records.

11.    On behalf of the Registrant, Dr Mulligan made submissions to the Panel, explaining the background to the offences being committed and the steps taken by the Registrant since that time.  The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation in which he explained the same matters and answered questions put to him by the Presenting Officer and the Panel.  

Decision on Impairment:

12.    The Panel accepted the advice it received from the Legal Assessor and closely followed the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.

13.    The Panel began by addressing the factors identified in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Practice Note, finding the guidance relating to mitigating and aggravating factors outlined in the Sanctions Policy useful in doing so.  The conclusions of the Panel were as follows:

•    This is not a case concerning the Registrant’s clinical performance, and therefore it is not one where it would be determined that the Registrant has in the past acted so as to put service users at unwarranted risk of harm.

•    This is a case in which the Registrant’s actions breached a fundamental tenet of his profession; the fact that the offences did not arise in the course of the Registrant’s practice does not detract from that fact, and the departure from expected professional conduct was a significant one.

•    Similarly, this is a case which demonstrates that in the past the Registrant has acted dishonestly, albeit that the Panel recognised that it was an isolated occurrence.

•    The inevitable consequence of the Registrant’s offending is that there would be a negative impact on public confidence not only in the Registrant as an individual, but also in his profession.

4.    In the judgement of the Panel, the all-important question to be decided in relation to the personal component was whether it could be said that there is a low risk of repetition. In his evidence before the Panel, the Registrant realistically acknowledged that it can never be said that there is no risk of an event being repeated.  The sensible question is whether the risk of repetition is sufficiently low to enable a Panel to say that there is no appreciable risk of it happening.  In reaching this decision, the Panel accepted the submission made by the Presenting Officer that when the issue is one of dishonesty, the behavioural and attitudinal aspects of that behaviour mean that it is difficult for there to be confidence that dishonest behaviour will not be repeated. However, having carefully considered all of the available information, the Panel concluded that there is no appreciable risk of repetition.  The reasons for this decision are as follows:

•    The Panel did not lose sight of the fact that each of these offences was an offence of dishonesty.  However, the background to the Registrant’s dishonesty was health. 

•    It was of course, the Registrant’s responsibility to manage his health in a way that would have prevented him from behaving as he did.  However, looking forward as the Panel must do to answer the impairment question in issue, the Panel is satisfied that the Registrant has achieved a level of insight, has expressed such a degree of remorse and shame, and put in place sufficiently robust measures that there can be a degree of confidence that, were he again to experience impaired health, the result of it would not be as it was in May 2023.

•    The Panel was of the view that the evidence of the steps taken by the Registrant was such that there was nothing further it would have been possible for him to do to demonstrate remediation leading to an imperceptible risk of repetition.

15.    As a consequence of the finding that there is not an appreciable risk of repetition, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is not currently impaired in relation to the personal component.

16.    Different considerations apply to the public component.  In reaching its decision on this issue, the Panel paid close attention to the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 to 35 inclusive of the Practice Note.

17.    The finding already explained in relation to the personal component has the consequence that the Panel does not consider that a finding of public component impairment of fitness to practise is required to address a need to protect service users.  However, the Panel did find that fair-minded members of the public, while recognising that the events occurred as long ago as 2023 and are highly unlikely to be repeated, would nevertheless expect the seriousness of a Practitioner Psychologist being convicted of these offences to be marked by the professional regulator.  Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to declare proper professional standards (one consequence of which is to serve as a deterrent to other professionals) were it not to mark the matter by a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise.

18.    The consequence of these findings is that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the public component alone.  That has the result that the Allegation is well founded.  Accordingly, the Panel must go on to consider the issue of sanction.

No information currently available

This hearing adjourned, part heard. The hearing will reconvene on 26 May 2026.

History of Hearings for ​​Hugo Barroso​