Ismael Hussain

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant, by email, to his registered email address on 11 February 2026 informing him that there would be a review of the Suspension Order on 13 March 2026. An email delivery notification has been provided. 

2. The Practice Note requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep his contact details with the HCPC up to date.

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

Proceeding in absence 

4. The Panel considered whether it was appropriate and fair to conduct the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel had regard to the representations made by Ms Hewett on behalf of the HCPC.

5. The Panel considered the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that today’s hearing was for a mandatory review of a Suspension Order.

6. The Panel was aware of the need to exercise its discretion to proceed in the Registrant’s absence with the utmost care and caution. The Panel was referred to the case of GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which reminded the Panel that its primary objective is the protection of the public and the public interest and that the “fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against medical practitioners is of very real importance”. In that regard, the case made clear that, “where there is good reason not to proceed, the case should be adjourned; where there is not, however, it is only right that it should proceed”.

7. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing gave the Registrant the opportunity to attend, submit any written representations or seek an adjournment. 

8. The Panel was satisfied that the HCPC had taken all reasonable steps to notify the Registrant of today’s hearing, and it was mindful that the Registrant had responded by email dated 04 March 2026 in which he stated:

“I don’t think I’ll be attending because I am not currently in the profession and I have had difficulty gaining a job in the field after my last role in radiotherapy. 

I have not had a good experience with applying for jobs. I consider my Radiotherpay career finished because of lack of job opportunities. Even though I did consider going back in. Also I have been suspended which makes it even more difficult”. [sic]

9. The Registrant in his response made no application for an adjournment.

10. The Panel was aware of the need to proceed expeditiously where it was appropriate to do so. The Panel decided that there was a strong public interest in proceeding and concluded that the Registrant was aware of the hearing and had voluntarily absented himself. In all the circumstances the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant as it concluded that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment as it would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance.

11. The Panel was satisfied that any prejudice to the Registrant by proceeding in his absence was outweighed by the public interest in the case proceeding, and it was of the view that the Registrant should not be permitted to frustrate the regulatory proceedings through his lack of engagement.

Background

12. The Registrant is a HCPC registered Radiographer. He was employed by the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (the Trust) as a band 5 Therapeutic Radiographer at the St James University Hospital on 14 March 2022. 

13. The Registrant started his employment with a period of induction under the overall supervision of a band 7 Radiographer, BH. Induction involved the Registrant observing a number of the 2 or 3 person teams that worked the machines delivering therapeutic radiation doses to patients, often those diagnosed with cancer of the breast or prostate. 

14. Each of the machines required a minimum of 2 people to administer treatment and during his induction period, the Registrant was a supernumerary or additional member of the team, observing and carrying out work only under the direct supervision of the Radiographers assigned to the machine. 

15. The expectation was that the Registrant would be observed by BH at the end of his induction period, who would assess whether the Registrant was safe to work as a full member of a treating team. There was no dispute that the induction period is usually between four and twelve weeks although it was initially hoped that the Registrant would complete his induction within four weeks because he had previous employment experience. 

16. For ease of reference, after the Registrant started work on 14 March 2022, four weeks ended on 11 April 2022, eight weeks ended on 09 May 2022, and 12 weeks ended on 06 June 2022. 

17. During the Registrant’s induction a number of concerns were raised, and he had not been assessed as sufficiently competent by July 2022. 

18. The Registrant was introduced to a band 7 Radiographer, MG, to support him. She is described in the documentation as “a trained mentor and has training in coaching and counselling for staff support and is involved with the black, asian, ethnic minority support group within the Trust.” [sic]

19. On 28 July 2022 (during week 19 of the Registrant’s induction) a meeting was held between the Registrant, BH and MG to ensure that the Registrant could complete his induction. Further meetings were held on 04 August 2022, 18 August 2022 and 01 September 2022 and 15 September 2022. 

20. At the meeting of 15 September 2022, BH signed off the Registrant as having completed part of his induction, namely work in the treatment room. He was not signed off as having completed his induction in imaging, planning or paperwork. 

21. At that meeting the Registrant said that he would resign from the Trust although he would work his notice. The contemporaneous note of that meeting indicates that the Registrant explained that “he felt it was all too much. He was struggling with the travelling as well and his personal situation at home. He felt he had been well supported during his 6 months with us. We discussed the fact he had struggled considerably with the induction and had not yet achieved full sign off and acknowledged this must be very difficult. [The Registrant] handed in his notice formally after the meeting.” 

22. Following that meeting the Registrant worked briefly as a member of the treatment team on one of the machines but further concerns were raised about his competence, as set out below. The Registrant stopped working at the Trust on 23 September 2022. 

23. SW, the deputy head of Radiography at the Trust, contacted the HCPC and then formally rereferred the Registrant to the HCPC on 18 February 2023.

24. At a hearing before a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee held between 13 and 20 February 2025 the allegation was found proved in relation to all the factual particulars and the panel made a finding of impairment. 

25. A Suspension Order was imposed for a period of 12 months. The order is due to expire on 20 March 2026, and this is a review of that order.

Submissions 

26. Ms Hewett on behalf of the HCPC provided the Panel with details of the background to the case which led to the finding of impairment on the ground of lack of competence. 

27. Ms Hewett highlighted that since that finding of impairment following the substantive hearing of the allegation, during which the Registrant had not attended, there had been minimal engagement from the Registrant.

28. Ms Hewett identified that the Registrant had enquired whether he could be voluntarily removed from the register. The Registrant was advised that this would require an admission in relation to the allegation, however, the Registrant was unwilling to admit his errors. 

29. Ms Hewett submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is still impaired and she invited the Panel to consider extending the period of suspension for a further 12 months.

30. Ms Hewett highlighted the decision of the panel who heard the matter in February 2025 where it considered that the Registrant’s inability to learn the most fundamental skills of Radiography meant that he was liable to place patients at risk of harm in the future, and that the Registrant's inability to practise safely meant that he was liable to bring the profession into disrepute.

31. Ms Hewett submitted that there was no evidence that the Registrant had addressed or mitigated the failings identified. Additionally, he had failed to take the steps suggested by that panel by engaging with the HCPC, demonstrating insight into his failings, undertaking training or education, and by attending the review hearing. 

32. The Panel had sight of emails from the Registrant in which he sought to be removed from the register. No other submissions or representations were received.

Legal Assessor’s Advice

33. The Legal Assessor advised that this is a Review under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and the Panel should consider the HCPTS Practice Notes on ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’, ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and the ‘Sanctions Policy’. The Panel was reminded that Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 provides Panels with a power to:

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

•    make an order which could have been made when the order being reviewed was made; or 

•    replace a suspension order with a conditions of practice order. 

34. 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. The purpose of the review is to consider:

•    Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired; and

•    If so, whether the existing order or another order needs to be in place to protect the public.

35. The key issue which needs to be addressed is what, if anything, has changed since the current order was imposed. The factors to be taken into account include:

•    the steps which the Registrant has taken to address any specific failings or other issues identified in the previous decision;

•    the degree of insight shown and whether this has changed;

•    the steps which the Registrant has taken to maintain or improve their professional knowledge and skills; and

•    whether any other fitness to practice issues have arisen.

36. 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 decision reached must be proportionate, striking a fair balance between interfering with the Registrant’s ability to practise and the overarching objective of public protection.

38. The HCPC’s overarching objective is protection of the public and the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish registrants for their past acts and omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise. It does this by:

•    protecting, promoting and maintaining the health, safety and well-being of the public;

•    promoting and maintaining public confidence in the professions it regulates;

•    promoting and maintaining proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.

39. In determining fitness to practise, Panels must take account of two broad components: the ‘personal’ component: the current competence and behaviour of the registrant concerned; and the ‘public’ component: those critically important public policy issues.

40. In making proportionate decisions on sanction, panels need to strike a balance between the competing interests of the registrant and the HCPC’s overriding objective to protect the public. Therefore, decisions should deal with the concerns raised, but be fair, just and reasonable. Sanctions are not intended to be punitive. Panels should only take the minimum action necessary to ensure the public is protected. This means considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it is necessary to protect the public.

Decision on Impairment

41. In reaching its decision today the Panel considered all the information before it. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired. The Panel was aware that the persuasive burden is upon the Registrant to demonstrate that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired. The Panel had regard to the decision of the substantive panel. However, it comprehensively reviewed the matter and exercised its own judgment in reaching its decision.

42. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes ‘Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders’ and ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

43. The Panel first of all considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired looking at both the personal component and the public component. The Panel acknowledged the comments of the panel who heard the substantive matter in their decision and heard submissions from Ms Hewett on behalf of the HCPC.

44. The Panel concluded that the Registrant had failed to discharge the persuasive burden to demonstrate 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...”.

45. The Panel came to this conclusion due to the fact that the Registrant did not engage with the substantive hearing or the review hearing and has taken no steps to satisfy this Panel that he has addressed the failings. The Registrant appears unable to accept his errors, even when this was required to proceed with his request to be voluntarily removed from the register. 

46. The Panel considered that the failings are remediable, but that remedial action has not been taken due to the Registrant’s lack of engagement and his unwillingness to accept the failings.

47. In considering the risk of repetition the Panel concluded that due to the lack of insight and engagement there is a high risk of repetition. The failings include multiple basic competencies required of a HCPC Radiographer, which the Registrant appeared unable to grasp despite an extended period of induction and training where a mentor was assigned to him. In the absence of any information relating to education and training, the Panel could not be assured that the Registrant was competent to return to practise. The failings identified had the potential to place service users at a real risk of harm as they included radiation safety issues.

48. It was determined that on the personal component the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

49. The Panel went on to consider the public component. Due to the identified risk of repetition and there being no evidence of insight or remediation, there inevitably remains a risk to the public and there is a need to protect the public from risk of harm.

50. In considering the public component the Panel found that members of the public would be concerned, and would not have confidence in the profession, or in the regulator, if the Registrant is permitted to return to unrestricted practice at present. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on the public component also.

51. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on both the personal and the public component and must go on to consider the issue of the appropriate sanction to address the concerns identified.

Decision on Sanction

52. The Panel looked at the Sanctions Policy considering the least restrictive sanction available to them first and only moving on to a more restrictive sanction if it was necessary to protect the public. The Panel was aware that the sanction is not a punishment for the Registrant but that it may have a punitive effect. The Panel was aware that once they reached a tentative view that an appropriate sanction has been identified, two further considerations should be made. One is to consider the next more severe sanction to the one identified in order to ensure that it sufficiently addresses the aims of a sanction. The other is to be satisfied that it is proportionate in the sense that it is no more severe than is required.

53. The Panel does not seek to repeat the aggravating and mitigating features identified by the panel in the previous decision at paragraphs 154 and 155.

54.The Panel first considered mediation or taking no action and determined that these were not appropriate due to the serious nature of the concerns and the risk of repetition identified. The Panel has concerns about the Registrant’s ability to practise safely and those risks could not be managed through mediation or taking no action. In addition, these outcomes would not satisfy public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process.

55. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to impose a sanction.

56. The Panel then considered whether a caution order would be appropriate and had regard to paragraphs 146-151 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel concluded that the concerns found proved were serious and not isolated in nature. Additionally, there was no evidence of insight or remediation by the Registrant. The Panel found that there was a high risk of repetition, and as a consequence of that there is a risk of harm to the public which would not be effectively managed by a caution order. In addition, public confidence in the profession and its regulation would not be maintained by the imposition of a caution order. For these reasons the Panel concluded that a caution order would not be appropriate.

57. The Panel went on to consider a conditions of practice order and had regard to paragraphs 152-166 of the Sanctions Policy.

58. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant had still not demonstrated insight or remediated. The Panel took note of paragraph 154 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious or persistent concerns”.

59. The Panel shared the concerns of the previous panel at paragraph 161 where it stated:

“The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant's failures and deficiencies are theoretically capable of being remediated but saw no evidence that the Registrant himself is capable of such remediation. The Panel observed that the Registrant’s failures have been so persistent and covered such a wide range of his practise that remediation is likely to require very extensive retraining. In those circumstances, the Panel cannot be satisfied that appropriate conditions can be formulated. The Panel received no material from the Registrant capable of satisfying it that he would comply with any conditions. The Panel has already found that even when supervised the Registrant posed a risk to patients and placed a significant burden upon his colleagues”.

60. This Panel considered the failings to be serious involving fundamental competencies of a Radiographer. It had concerns that any conditions of practice would not be workable due to the inability of the Registrant to acknowledge his failings and it considered that conditions would not be adequate due to the range of the competency concerns being so broad. Any conditions would require re-training due to the length of time the Registrant has been out of practice.

61. In addition, the Panel could not be confident at this time that the Registrant would comply with any conditions due to his lack of engagement in the regulatory process, and it cannot be said that conditions would mitigate the risk of repetition and consequently there is a real risk of harm to service users.

62. The Panel considered that for these reasons a conditions of practice order was neither appropriate nor proportionate.

63. The Panel next went on to consider a suspension order and referred itself to paragraphs 167-175 of the Sanctions Policy.

64. The Panel considered that the concerns found proved represented a serious breach of the HCPC’s Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers, and the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. The Panel concluded that there was a risk of repetition due to the inability of the Registrant to acknowledge his failings, and the lack of insight.

65. The Panel noted that a striking off order may not be made in respect of an allegation relating to concerns about a Registrant’s competence unless the Registrant has been continuously suspended, or subject to a conditions of practice order, for a period of two years at the date of the decision to strike off.

66. The Panel concluded that a suspension order is the most appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. Such an order would allow the Registrant a period of time to develop insight and remediate should he choose to do so. A suspension order would also meet the public interest as such an order would give members of the public confidence that the matters in this case have been taken seriously and that the Registrant would not be permitted to return to practice until his shortcomings have been addressed.

67. The Panel therefore imposed a suspension order for a period of 12 months. This order will be reviewed prior to its termination, and the Panel agreed with the previous panel and considered that the reviewing panel will be assisted by the Registrant providing evidence of:

a. the Registrant engaging with the HCPC, 

b. a compelling demonstration of developed insight into his lack of competence and its consequences, 

c. attending the review hearing, and, 

d. demonstrating that he has undertaken sufficient education and remediation to address his significant and fundamental failures.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Ismael Hussain for a further period of 12 months from the date this order comes into effect.

The Order imposed today will apply from 20 March 2026.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 20 March 2027.

History of Hearings for Ismael Hussain