Mark A Apprekoh

Preliminary Matters

Service

1.    The Panel was satisfied by the service documents that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of this hearing by email dated 12 January 2026 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules), as amended. Delivery of notice was confirmed by email of the same date.

Proceeding in absence

2.    Ms Higgs made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and waived his right to attend. 

3.    The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in  the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that, in his Response to the Notice of Allegation dated 10 July 2025, the Registrant stated that he would not attend the hearing and would not be represented. He provided a reflective statement of the same date and other supporting documents. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself from today’s hearing. The Registrant had not applied for an adjournment. The Panel considered that the Registrant would be unlikely to attend at a later date if the hearing were adjourned and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. The Panel determined that it was in the public interest, and fair to the Registrant, to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

Hearing in private

4.    Ms Higgs made an application for any reference to the Registrant’s private life and health, and that of his wife and mother, to be heard in private.

5.    The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

6.    The Panel decided that any reference to the Registrant’s private life and health, and that of his wife and mother, should be heard in private on the grounds advanced by Ms Higgs but the hearing should otherwise be conducted in public.

Background

7.    The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer. At the material time he was employed in that capacity by Medeo Diagnostics UK Limited.

8.    On 18 July 2024, the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC to the effect that on 12 July 2024 he was convicted at Reading Magistrates Court of the drink-drive offence referred to in the Allegation. The offence occurred on 21 April 2024.

9.    The Registrant pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to a fine of £960 and his licence was endorsed with a driving disqualification of 25 months, which would be reduced by 25 weeks on completion of a drink-drive course.

Decision on Facts

10.    The Panel found the Allegation proved by the certificate of conviction, which was confirmed by the Registrant’s admission in his Self Referral dated 18 July 2024 and his Reflection dated 10 July 2025.

Decision on Impairment

11.    The Registrant provided the following evidence:

•    Medical evidence
•    Character reference from his wife
•    Excerpt of the GP record of his wife
•    Documents setting out the discontinuance of the Registrant’s employment with Medeo Diagnostics UK Limited in 2024
•    Health reference form completed by his GP dated 4 March 2025
•    Certificate of completion by the Registrant of a drink- driving course
•    Reflective statement dated 10 July 2025.

12.    The Panel took into account the HCPC Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.  

13.    The Panel took into account the documents provided by the Registrant and the submissions of Ms Higgs on behalf of the HCPC.

14.    With regard to the personal element of impairment the Panel considered that the drink-driving offence was an isolated incident which had no bearing on his competence as a Radiographer. The Registrant had pleaded guilty, he had apologised to the HCPC and shown genuine remorse. The Panel also accepted that there were specific factors in the Registrant’s personal life at the time which caused or contributed to the events which resulted in his conviction.

15.    The Panel considered that the Registrant had good insight into the underlying causes and had taken appropriate remedial steps by undertaking a drink-drive course. He had also engaged with his GP in respect of his health, which did not give rise to any ongoing concerns about his misuse of alcohol or fitness to practise as a Radiographer

16.     In all the circumstances, the Panel determined that the risk of repetition was very low. Accordingly, the Panel did not consider the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired having regard to the personal component.
17.    However, the Panel also took into account the responsibility of the HCPC to uphold proper standards of conduct on the part of members of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that, by reason of his conviction, the Registrant had been in breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, which states that “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession”.

18.    The Panel considered that public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made, having regard to the seriousness of his conviction and the underlying facts on which it was based.

19.    Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Radiographer is impaired by reason of his conviction in respect of the public component of impairment.

Decision on Sanction

20.    The Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

21.    The Panel took into account that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest of upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

22.    The Panel was favourably impressed by the Registrant’s reflective statement on the facts and circumstances relating to his conviction and its implications both personal and professional and the steps that he has taken to address the issues which gave rise to it. 

23.    The aggravating factor in the case is that the Registrant potentially put members of the public at risk of harm by driving when he was considerably over the prescribed limit of alcohol.

24.    The mitigating factors are as follows:

•    The drink-driving offence was an isolated incident associated with specific factors in his personal life at the time.
•    He pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court.

•    He notified the HCPC of his conviction as soon as could reasonably be expected.
•    He withdrew his application for continued employmnent with Medeo Diagnostics UK Limited because of his drink-driving offence, thereby showing that he understood its seriousness.
•    He has apologised and shown considerable remorse and insight both as to the causes and the consequences of his conviction for himself personally and professionally.
•    He has successfully completed a Drink-Drive Offenders Course.
•    He has engaged with his GP to address any outstanding health issues which might affect his fitness to practise. 

25.    As already stated, the Panel has no concerns about the Registrant’s competence or safety as a Radiographer.

26.    A sanction is not required for the protection of the public. 

27.    The Panel took into account the public interest issues in upholding proper standards of conduct on the part of the Registrant, the reputation of the profession and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator. 

28.    The Registrant’s conviction and the underlying facts are too serious for the Panel to take no further action.

29.    The Panel considered that all the indicative factors for a Caution Order are present in this case, namely:

•    the issue is isolated
•    there is a low risk of repetition
•    the Registrant has shown good insight; and
•    the Registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation

30.    Given the high reading of alcohol involved in the drink-driving offence, and the risk to public safety caused, the Panel considered that the appropriate duration for the imposition of a Caution Order should be 3 years.

31.    The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would be not be relevant or appropriate because the Registrant’s conviction did not relate to clinical matters or his practice as a Radiographer.

32.    The Panel further considered that, in light of all the mitigating factors referred to above, a Suspension Order would be entirely disproportionate.

33.    The Panel therefore imposed a Caution Order for 3 years. 

Order: The Registrar is directed to annotate the entry on the register for Mr Mark A Apprekoh with a Caution Order for 3 years.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mark A Apprekoh