Thomas Ashworth

Background
1.    The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist. He was employed as a Band 6 Physiotherapist to work three days per week on a temporary 12-month contract at Priory Grafton Manor (‘Grafton Manor’) to cover maternity leave. Grafton Manor is a rehabilitation unit for patients with acquired or traumatic brain injury. The Registrant’s first day of employment was 18 January 2021. His probation period was terminated early on 1 February 2021, an early review having been held due to concerns raised by colleagues.

2.    The concerns raised were discussed with the Registrant at the probation review meeting. The concerns raised with the Registrant were that he had stated that Indian physiotherapists are lazy; that he had laughed and encouraged inappropriate sexual comments made by a resident; that he had sent inappropriate WhatsApp messages to a female colleague and that he had described residents as ‘not normal’ and one as being ‘like a puppy with a treat’.

3.    In view of the nature and number of concerns raised in a short period, the Registrant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect. A safeguarding referral was made, and matters were reported to the HCPC.

4.    The substantive hearing took place 8-11 September 2025. The Registrant did not attend that hearing and was not represented.

5.    The panel at the substantive hearing found Particulars 1a, 1b (in part), 2a, 2b, 3 proved. 

6.    The panel found that the proven facts constituted misconduct and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was thereby impaired. 

7.    With regard to the personal component of impairment, the panel found that, in the absence of sufficient evidence of insight or remediation, the risk of repetition was high, and the Registrant continued to pose risks to service users and colleagues.

8.     The Panel further determined that a finding of impairment was required in the public interest to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. His racist language was indicative of underlying discriminatory views and was liable to cause offence to service users, carers and colleagues of Indian descent. The panel considered that a finding of impairment was required in the public interest to mark the unacceptability of racist language and views.

9.    Whilst the panel considered the Registrant’s sexual misconduct to be at the low end of the scale, a finding of impairment was necessary to make it clear that it was unacceptable and would not be tolerated in the workplace.

10.    The panel decided to impose a Suspension Order on the Registrant for a period of 6 months. In so doing, the panel stated as follows:
“This period will also be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the conduct, given the Panel’s determination that whilst discriminatory comments and sexual misconduct are inherently serious, the misconduct in question was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness for these types of behaviours. There had been a single racist comment and the sexual misconduct was in the form of messages, which were not rebuffed, rather than physical contact”.

11.    The panel also noted that 
•    The Registrant’s misconduct was remediable
•    He had engaged in the proceedings, although he had absented himself from the hearing 
•    Six months should allow sufficient time for the Registrant to reflect and demonstrate insight. 

12.    The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by:
•    The Registrant’s attendance at the review hearing;
•    Testimonials from any current or recent employers, or from any voluntary work undertaken, testifying to the Registrant’s attitude and conduct towards colleagues and clients;
•    A focussed reflection (using the Gibbs reflective practice cycle) on the impact of the use of racist language by professionals;
•     A focussed reflection on the risks associated with practitioners not making themselves aware of and following care plans;
•    A focussed reflection on professional boundaries with colleagues and the implications of an imbalance of power;
•    Further CPD including modules on diversity and respect, along with a written demonstration of the learning taken from all the recent CPD undertaken, including how this learning will influence the Registrant’s practice in the future.

Today’s hearing 
13.    The Panel was provided by the HCPC with a hearing bundle which included the decision of the panel at the substantive hearing.

14.    The Registrant provided the Panel with his detailed reflections on what he had learned from undertaking CPD courses and certificates evidencing the following:
•    Inclusive Leadership towards Collaboration
•    Leadership for Inclusion
•    Effective communication in the workplace
•    A question of ethics
•    Improving workplace behaviours 
•    Understanding service improvement in healthcare
•    Gender Equality
•    Just and Learning Culture

Submissions
15.    On behalf of the HCPC Ms Sampson submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

16.    The Registrant made oral submissions to the Panel in which he confirmed the CPD undertaken and answered questions from the Panel as to how his learning was reflected in his understanding of the panel’s findings of misconduct at the substantive hearing.

Decision
17.    The Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Notes “Review of Article 30 Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

18.    The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired by reason of the allegations found proved at the substantive hearing.

19.    The Panel had regard to the decision of the High Court in Abrahaem v GMC [2008] EWHC 183 [Admin] where it was stated that in practical terms 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 findings and has addressed his impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement”.

20.    The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s engagement in these proceedings and attendance at this review as evidence of his willingness to address the previous panel’s findings of impairment and to remediate his practice.

21.    The Panel, however, found a continuing lack of insight and remediation on the part of the Registrant in the following respects:
•    He had not provided any recent testimonials concerning his attitude and conduct towards colleagues and clients. The only testimonial provided by the Registrant was from a former supervisor relating to the period 2017-2018, which pre-dated the allegations. 
•    His reflective statement lacked focus and failed to explain how, if at all, his learning would inform his future practice so as to avoid the expression of racist attitudes and/or sexualised conduct towards female colleagues or others in the workplace.
•    When questioned by the Panel as to how he would now behave differently in respect of the specific incidents in which misconduct had been found proved, the Registrant continued to deflect responsibility and demonstrated a tendency to attribute responsibility to external systemic factors including the working environment and management rather than fully accepting personal responsibility. 
•    In respect of his racist comment, the Registrant acknowledged that it was inappropriate but suggested that it was explicable by his personal experience thereby failing to demonstrate a full understanding of why such statements are professionally unacceptable regardless of his own personal belief. In answer to Panel questions, the Registrant referred to his comments as being misunderstood as being racist, which the Panel considered to reflect the Registrant’s limited insight. 
•    With regard to the substantive panel’s finding of misconduct in relation to Service User A, the Registrant failed to acknowledge the associated risks to service users and colleagues and therefore did not demonstrate insight into the previous panel’s concerns. 
•    The Registrant provided what purported to be a focussed reflection on professional boundaries and power imbalance but, in relation to his sexualised communication with Colleague A, he failed to acknowledge any such breach of professional boundaries or abuse of power imbalance and suggested that his conduct had been misunderstood.

22.    Whilst acknowledging the work done by the Registrant in undertaking relevant CPD and his written reflections, and some evidence of developing insight, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had demonstrated that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired in respect of the personal component. In particular, the Registrant had not yet acknowledged that his own conduct had been at fault or expressed any understanding of the negative impact of such conduct on the public, including colleagues and service users, and on the profession at large. In the absence of full insight and sufficient remediation, the Panel considered that there was a risk of repetition of his misconduct within the workplace and of consequential harm to service users and colleagues. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired in respect of the personal component.

23.    The Panel also considered that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired in respect of the public component. Public confidence in profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of current impairment given the outstanding concerns about the Registrant’s fitness to practise.

24.    Given the matters referred to above, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had discharged the persuasive burden of demonstrating that his fitness to practise is no longer impaired either in respect of the personal or public components of impairment. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.

25.    With regard to sanction, the Panel took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy (March 2026) and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

26.    The Panel considered the need to protect the public and gave appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.

27.    The Panel considered that the concerns about the Registrant’s fitness to practise are too serious to take no further action or for the imposition of a Caution Order.

28.    The Panel considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient to address the concerns. However, given that the outstanding issues relate to attitudinal concerns and limited insight, the Panel was not satisfied that workable or measurable conditions would adequately protect the public or satisfy the wider public interest. 

29.    The Panel decided to impose a further period of suspension for a period of six months from the expiry of the current order. This would give the Registrant the opportunity to address the outstanding concerns.

30.    The Panel considered that a reviewing panel was likely to be assisted by: 
•    The Registrant’s attendance at the next hearing. 
•    His focused reflections on the specific findings of the panel at the substantive hearing, the potentially negative effect on colleagues and service users, and the profession at large, of breach of professional boundaries and racist comments and how his behaviour in respect of such matters would now be different.
•    Recent independent testimonials from any employer and/or work colleagues about his attitudes and conduct in the workplace and his adherence to professional boundaries.
 
31.    The Registrant should be in no doubt that if he fails to make substantive process in addressing the matters identified, a future reviewing panel may consider a more restrictive sanction namely a Striking Off Order. 

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Thomas Ashworth for a period of 6 months on the expiry of the current Suspension Order.   

Right of Appeal 
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you. 
Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you.  The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn. 

History of Hearings for Thomas Ashworth