Justin Manning

Background

3.    The Registrant is a registered Operating Department Practitioner. At the material time, he was employed by Horder Healthcare (the Employer) as a Clinical Lead Surgical Care Practitioner. 

4.    On 29 February 2024, GR (a People’s Advisor at the Employer), was informed that a complaint had been made by a member of the public (Person A) in relation to the conduct of the Registrant. This complaint amounted to the fact that it was alleged that the Registrant had sent an email from his work email account which contained an explicit picture of her. 

5.    Following the receipt of the complaint, the Employer determined that the Registrant would be suspended whilst an investigation was undertaken. During the Registrant’s suspension, an internal investigation was undertaken. During an interview held as part of the internal investigation, the Registrant disclosed that he had been charged with stalking involving serious alarm/distress and threatening to share a photograph or film of a person in an intimate state. 

6.    The Registrant was subsequently convicted of these offences on 9 October 2024. 

7.    On 21 March 2025, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer, and the case was referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee.   
Admissions. 

8.    The Registrant admitted the facts as alleged as far as Particular 1, 2, and 3 were concerned.  He accepted that the conduct detailed in Particular 1 amounts to serious professional misconduct and he accepts the convictions as set out in Particular 3.  It was also accepted on behalf of the Registrant that the Panel may well be likely to find that fitness to practise is impaired in relation to the public component at a later stage of the proceedings.  The Registrant’s representative made clear that the Registrant does not accept that he presents a risk to the public or that there is any risk of repetition. 

9.    The Panel accepted legal advice as to admissions and had regard to the HCPTS practice note ‘Admissions’ dated January 2026.  It noted the cogent evidence that it had been provided with, including the certificate of conviction, and noted that there was nothing that undermined the admissions made by the Registrant.  

10.    It was the determination of the Panel that the admissions made by the Registrant were unequivocal and made with the benefit of legal advice. However, as the HCPC representative wished to call evidence as to misconduct, it determined that it would only accept the admissions to Particular 1 and Particular 3 at this stage. 

The HCPC case. 

11.    It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the conduct detailed at Particular 1 constituted serious professional misconduct. The HCPC called GR to give evidence.

12.    GR confirmed the ‘Acceptable Use Policy’ maintained by the Employer, the details of this and the way that this had been breached by the Registrant.  She clarified that, had Person A not made a complaint, it was unlikely that the email sent by the Registrant to Person A would have come to light by another means. GR was not aware that it would have been picked up through the IT systems that the Employer had in place.  GR also gave evidence that the Registrant was immediately remorseful about the matter and had sought professional help in relation to his personal issues. 

13.    It was submitted by the HCPC that the Registrant had already made concessions to the misconduct.  The representative highlighted that the relevant HCPC standards in place at the time were the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics from 2016 (the Standards). She submitted that the following parts of the Standards had been breached: 

•    9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
•    2.1 You must be polite and considerate.

14.    It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the conduct of the Registrant as set out at Particular 1 constituted serious professional misconduct. 
The Registrant’s Position. 

15.    The Registrant’s representative also accepted that Standards 9.1 and 2.1 had been breached. It was accepted on the Registrant’s behalf that the high bar for professional misconduct had been met. 

Legal Advice. 

16.    The Legal Assessor provided legal advice as to misconduct and that this is a separate ground which can be relied upon other than conviction.  Both grounds are as set out in the Health Professions Order 2001, 22 (1)(a) (i) and (iii).  The Panel was directed to the relevant case law in respect of misconduct.  The Panel was reminded that, despite the Registrant’s admissions, misconduct was a matter for the Panel’s own professional judgement as there was no burden or standard of proof. 

Decision on Facts.

17.    The Panel found Particular 1 and Particular 3 proved by way of admission. 
Decision on Grounds. 

Conviction. 

18.    Particular 3 (relating to the convictions) was admitted. The Panel had also had sight of the certified copy of the convictions, and there was no information available that undermined the Registrant’s admission.  The Panel therefore determined that the convictions were proved.

Misconduct.

19.    The Panel accepted the legal advice.  It took note of the submissions made by the HCPC and the fact that misconduct had been admitted on the Registrant’s behalf.  Nevertheless, it was mindful that misconduct was a matter for its own independent judgment, and that only serious professional misconduct would qualify.

20.    It was the view of the Panel that not all failures to comply with an employer’s ‘Acceptable Use Policy’ in relation to sending communications from work would constitute misconduct.  It acknowledged that the communication sent by the Registrant to Person A was sent from his professional email address.  It had regard to the written evidence and the photograph exhibited, which had been partially redacted. The Panel accepted that the photograph showed Person A’s naked bottom, as set out by the HCPC and not disputed by the Registrant.  It also had regard to the wording used by the Registrant in the email accompanying the image.  It was the conclusion of the Panel that the email contained a sexually explicit image and was of a threatening nature.

21.    The Panel determined that the sexually explicit nature of the image and wording accompanying being sent to Person A was potentially damaging to Person A’s well-being.  It was the finding of the Panel that both Standard 9.1 and Standard 2.1 of the Standards had been breached.

22.     It was the view of the Panel that, regardless of the admission made by the Registrant, in its own judgement this matter reached the high threshold to constitute serious professional misconduct.  Therefore, in relation to Particular 1 only, the Panel found misconduct proved.  

Decision on Impairment    

The Registrant’s evidence. 

23.    The Registrant gave evidence on oath.  He confirmed that the written witness statement he had provided remained correct. The Registrant described how he felt great shame, anger at himself and sorry for his behaviour towards Person A.  He described the sending of the email as a terrible thing to have done.  

24.    The Registrant gave details of the support he had received from the Employer, his colleagues, his GP and a psychotherapist.  He described having worked as an Operating Department Practitioner for thirty years and accepted that when first challenged about sending the email, his initial thoughts were for himself.  However, having gone through the court process, received input from the probation service and conducted significant reading to obtain more understanding as to the victim’s perspective, the Registrant was able to fully appreciate the impact of his behaviour on Person A. He expressed his remorse for the impact of this behaviour and described crying when reading Person A’s victim impact statement. 

25.    It was accepted by the Registrant that his convictions and the misconduct he admitted brought the profession into disrepute.

26.    The Registrant spoke about his private life. He described how he never intended to cause harm or distress to Person A. He also explained that he would now seek professional help more swiftly if he experienced a similar situation in future.  

RN’s Evidence.

27.    RN is a clinical lead who works closely with the Registrant and is registered as an Operating Department Practitioner with the HCPC. RN has worked with the Registrant since 2015. He gave sworn evidence as to the Registrant’s openness at work, describing the Registrant as a private individual who had nevertheless managed to have numerous conversations with colleagues about the criminal proceedings and the HCPC allegations.  RN gave evidence about the level of remorse demonstrated by the Registrant.  RN explained that the Registrant had not shown self-pity but had fully taken responsibility for his actions, and that the mistakes made by the Registrant were completely uncharacteristic of him. 

28.    RN explained that the Registrant’s colleagues still held him in high regard, despite their knowledge of his behaviour. He explained that conversations had taken place between him and the Registrant in which the HCPC standards of conduct had been discussed.  

HCPC Submissions.

29.    It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant’s conduct was capable of remediation, but that it was open to the Panel to find that the conduct was caused by attitudinal issues, such as the Registrant feeling entitled. It was submitted that attitudinal issues are typically more difficult to remediate. 

30.    The HCPC representative acknowledged that the Panel may be of the view that these attitudinal issues have been addressed by the Registrant’s participation in the Skills for Relationships Toolkit intervention. Notwithstanding the skills that the Registrant claims these sessions have equipped him with. She submitted that the Registrant’s ability to manage these stressors in a more appropriate manner has never been tested.      

31.    It was submitted that the Registrant has been convicted of serious offences which include an offence under the Sexual Offences Act. The representative submitted that, although a custodial sentence was not imposed, the offences were deemed serious enough to pass the community sentence threshold and a community sentence had been imposed. It was reiterated that the Registrant’s offending behaviour involved sending a threatening email with explicit content from his work email account, arguably abusing his professional position as an Operating Department Practitioner with the Employer.

32.    Further, it was submitted that stalking offences involve ‘a course of conduct’, which implies that the conduct was not an isolated incident. The representative submitted that conduct that has been repeated in the past is more likely to be repeated in the future than conduct which is an isolated incident.  The HCPC’s submission was that the public’s perception of Operating Department Practitioners has been marred by the Registrant’s conduct. It was submitted that the HCPC would be remiss as a Regulator not to take steps to attempt to restrict the practise of a practitioner who has behaved in the same manner as the Registrant.

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant.

33.    It was submitted that the Registrant had demonstrated genuine remorse and real insight into the consequences and impact of his actions. It was submitted that the Registrant had shown a very high degree of insight into the harm caused by his actions and had done all he could to remediate his past misconduct. As a result of this significant remediation, it was submitted that the misconduct was highly unlikely to be repeated. 

34.    The representative emphasised that the Employer took the view that these matters warranted a final written warning, taking into account the Registrant’s  previous good character, his clear record during his long service with the Employer, and his admission of guilt and ongoing remorse. 

35.    It was also emphasised that the Registrant had not received a custodial sentence, and that the probation officer who had worked with him had provided a positive reference on his behalf.  It was submitted that there was clear evidence that the Registrant was not at all well at the time of the offences and had behaved in a manner that was entirely out of keeping with his usual character. It was submitted that, whilst all convictions are serious, and these convictions are serious, it can be the case that public confidence is not undermined when the sentence has been served.  Further, not all convictions would engage the public interest to the extent that a finding of impairment would always be required.  

36.    The representative submitted that a finding of misconduct should not necessarily result in a finding that fitness to practise is currently impaired, as an assessment of fitness to practise is a forward-looking exercise.  It was also put forward that the question of what the public interest requires in any given case is a matter for the professional judgment of the Panel. She submitted that there is no agreed definition of what public confidence is, or what behaviours or regulatory action may impact upon it in the context of health professional regulation.

Legal Advice.

37.    The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS practice note, ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ dated August 2025. The Panel were also referred to relevant case law, including the test set out in CHRE v NMC (and Grant) EWHC 97 (Admin). It was reiterated that a finding of impairment was a matter for the Panel’s own professional judgement, there being no burden or standard of proof. 

Panel Decision.

38.    The Panel accepted the legal advice it had received and was mindful that its task was to assess the Registrant’s current fitness to practise as it is today.  It firstly considered the personal component of fitness to practise.  

39.    The Panel noted the very substantial work carried out by the Registrant.  It accepted the high level of remorse clearly demonstrated and noted that the Registrant had pleaded guilty to the criminal offences at an early opportunity, engaged fully with the probation work. The Panel was impressed by the Registrant’s deep reflections on the literature that he had read in an attempt to understand more about Person A’s perspective and the impact on her of his actions.  It was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant’s remorse was genuine and his insight into the causes and impact of the conduct was fully developed.  It considered that there was nothing more that the Registrant could have done to remediate, given the specific circumstances of the case.

40.    It had ample evidence before it as to the Registrant’s current attitude, including positive evidence from his probation officer and numerous testimonials from his colleagues, who the Registrant had been open and honest with. 

41.    The Panel accepted that the Registrant had worked as an Operating Department Practitioner for thirty years, and that prior to these matters his career was unblemished.  It acknowledged he is very highly regarded in his workplace. There was no actual harm or risk of harm to patients.  Whilst Person A is a member of the public, the Panel concluded that the Registrant had remediated his misconduct towards her as far as possible.  The Panel had evidence before it that the Registrant’s attitude is pro-social, with no underlying misogyny.  It was the finding of the Panel that the remediation carried out was sufficient to protect members of the public from the risk of repetition in future. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition was low.  It found that the personal component was not engaged, and the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not currently impaired in terms of the protection of the public. 

42.    The Panel next moved on to consider the public component.  It accepted that its role is not to punish the Registrant, and that it was essentially the same conduct that led to both the misconduct charged at Particular 1 and the Registrant’s criminal offending.  It was acknowledged by the Panel that this behaviour occurred during a difficult and exceptional period in the Registrant’s life, and that he had made extensive personal efforts to remediate.  The Panel fully acknowledged that everyone is human, and that people make mistakes.  However, it considered the nature of both the Registrant’s misconduct and criminal behaviour to be so serious that an ordinary and fully informed member of the public would be concerned if no finding of current impairment of fitness to practise was made, despite the fact that the sentence was at an end and significant remediation had been carried out. 

43.    It was the view of the Panel that the offences committed, and the misconduct accepted and found proved constituted a course of conduct, which went on for several months. It was not simply a one-off incident or mistake. The Panel fully accepted that at the time the offending occurred, the Registrant had no thought as to the impact of his behaviour on Person A, and that this had now changed.  It also accepted what it had been told about the Registrant’s state of mind at that time.  However, it was the conclusion of the Panel that the seriousness of both the misconduct and the offending is such that the public interest component is engaged.  It concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in relation to the public interest component only.

Decision on Sanction

HCPC Submissions.

44.    It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that any sanction imposed should address the facts found proved. The representative submitted that the aggravating factors were the repetition of concerns and a pattern of unacceptable behaviour.  It was submitted that this was not an isolated incident, which increases the risk of repetition.  The representative drew the Panel’s attention to specific parts of the HCPC Sanctions Policy from March 2026 and also put on record that the Registrant has no fitness to practise history. The HCPC did not make a “sanction bid” in accordance with its current policy. 

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant. 

45.    The Registrant’s representative adopted some of her submissions from stage 2, which were also relevant to sanction. She submitted that a sanction must not seek to punish twice, in circumstances where the actual punishment has been served.  It was submitted on the Registrant’s behalf that there was no harm intended in the course of conduct he had pursued.  The mitigating factors identified included the Registrant’s insight, remorse and remediation. Further, the Registrant had accepted responsibility for his actions in both the criminal and regulatory proceedings. It was submitted that there was a significant public interest in allowing a highly regarded and competent practitioner to practise, and that the Panel could consider either a lengthy caution order or a short period of suspension as an appropriate Sanction.

Legal Advice. 

46.    The Legal Assessor confirmed that the Panel should have regard to the HCPC Sanctions policy dated 2 March 2026, and set out the 
principles in respect of sanctions for conviction cases found within case law.  

Panel Decision. 

47.    The Panel accepted the legal advice and had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy dated 2 March 2026.  

48.    The Panel identified the following mitigating features:

•    Insight – this was demonstrated by the Registrant to a very high level.
•    Remorse – the Registrant’s remorse was considered by the Panel to be genuine. The Panel also noted that the Registrant accepted responsibility at an early stage in the employment, criminal and regulatory proceedings. 
•    Remediation – the Registrant had undertaken significant, substantial and extensive remediation. This included extensive reading and research on the impact of stalking on victims and detailed reflection on the impact of his own behaviour on Person A.

49.    The Panel also identified the following aggravating factor:

•    There had been a pattern of unacceptable behaviour resulting in the Registrant’s conviction for stalking Person A.

50.    In accordance with the policy, the Panel considered the lowest level of sanction first.  It considered that it was not appropriate to refer to mediation or take no action, given the seriousness of the offending and misconduct found proved.

51.    The Panel then went on to consider a caution order.  It noted that the Sanctions Policy indicated that a caution order may be appropriate if there is a low risk of repetition, the Registrant had shown good insight and the Registrant had undertaken appropriate remediation.  It was the finding of the Panel that all three of these aspects applied to the Registrant’s case. 

52.    The Panel determined that it could not be considered that the matters were isolated or relatively minor in nature.  It therefore moved on to consider the next level of sanction, a conditions of practice order.

53.    It was the view of the Panel that a conditions of practice order would not address the concerns identified or serve any useful purpose.  There were no issues of competence or clinical concerns, and the Registrant had worked at a high level of clinical competence despite the issues in his personal life.  The issues that brought the Registrant before the Panel related primarily to conduct within his private life.  The Panel were mindful that RN had offered to act as a supervisor but considered that conditions of practice would not be useful or appropriate in this case.

54.    This meant the next available sanction was a suspension order.  The Panel was mindful that the purpose of regulation is the protection of the public and protecting public confidence in the profession. It is not the role of the Panel to punish the Registrant for his past misdoings.

55.    The Panel had already found that the Registrant was no longer impaired in respect of the personal component, and that he had remediated his misconduct as far as was possible.  It was the view of the Panel that to impose a suspension order in these circumstances, when the Registrant had shown such significant insight and taken extensive remedial action, would be purely punitive.  There would be nothing for the Registrant to achieve, remediate or rectify during the period of suspension.  The Panel also determined that a well-informed member of the public, aware of the specific circumstances and actions already taken by the Registrant, would not expect a highly regarded and competent clinician to be suspended to satisfy the public interest. The Panel determined that an order of suspension would therefore be disproportionate.

56.    The Panel therefore returned to its consideration of a caution order.  The Registrant has already been punished and completed his community order including “rehabilitation activity requirement days” imposed by the Magistrates’ Court for the same conduct that brought him before the regulator. The Panel was fully aware of the seriousness of the criminal offences and had determined that the level of misconduct was sufficiently serious that the public interest would not be served without a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. However, the Registrant had continued to practice for two years since that time without any repetition, and although his conduct towards Person A was repeated, this occurred during a relatively short period of time in what has been a lengthy career only blemished by these matters.  

57.    Further, the Panel had heard ample evidence that the Registrant’s conduct was completely out of character.  It found that the Registrant had worked extremely hard to remediate and develop a remarkable level of insight.  It was the conclusion of the Panel that the Registrant had fully recognised and addressed his failings and had worked hard to ensure that he had sufficient support available to make any risk of repetition low. The exceptional nature of the Registrant’s remediation, along with the numerous testimonials attesting to his work and his character, assisted the Panel to reach the conclusion that a caution order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the unique circumstances of this case. 

58.    The Panel had the power to impose a caution order of between 1 and 5 years.  Due to the gravity of the offences, the Panel took the view that only a caution order at the highest end of the spectrum would be sufficient to mark the seriousness of these matters. The Panel’s view was that this would serve to mark the Registrant’s misconduct and convictions, as well as adequately protect the public interest in terms of the reputation of both the profession and the regulator. The Panel therefore determined to impose a Caution Order for a period of 5 years.

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Justin Manning with a Caution Order, which is to remain on the register for a period of 5 years from the date this order comes into effect.      

Final Hearing of the conduct and competence committee to take place in-person at the following address between 11-13 March 2026: 

Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service
(HCPTS)

Park House, 184–186 Kennington Park Road
London
SE11 4BU

History of Hearings for Justin Manning