​​William R Hunter​

Preliminary matters

1.    On 12 March 2025, a panel of the Investigating Committee found that there was a case for the Registrant to answer in respect of the Allegation set out below. The Allegation, as amended, was referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC on 5 August 2025.

As a registered Physiotherapist: 

1.    Between August 2023 and January 2024, on one or more occasions you brought cannabis to your place of work. 

2.    The matter set out in particular 1 above constitutes misconduct. 

3.    By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct. 

The Skeleton Arguments

2.    For the purposes of this hearing the HCPC submitted, and the Panel read, two Skeleton Arguments, each signed by Mr Simon Maughan of Blake Morgan LLP. The first was dated 30 January 2026 and is referred to as the Skeleton Argument. The second was dated 23 February 2026 and is referred to as the Addendum Skeleton Argument. Mr Maughan adopted both Skeleton Arguments as the basis of his submissions to the Panel. The Panel read all the relevant documents that were identified in the Skeleton Arguments. 

Service

3.    The Panel had sight of the Notice of today’s hearing dated 5 December 2025, which the HCPTS sent by email to the Registrant at his registered email address. The Notice of Hearing made it clear that this hearing would take place today as a virtual hearing. The Notice informed the Registrant of the time and date of this hearing. He was asked whether he intended to attend and whether he was to be represented at this hearing. Delivery of the Notice was confirmed by an electronic message dated 5 December 2025, which the Panel had also seen.

4.    Having seen the relevant service documents and having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that good service of the Notice of Hearing had taken place.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

5.    The Panel had sight of an email from the Registrant dated 23 November 2025 and addressed to the HCPTS. In that email, the Registrant stated that as he supported the HCPC’s application to dispose of the case by consent, he would not be attending the hearing and he would not be represented. This email was in response to an email from the Scheduling Officer dated 18 November 2025 making the appropriate enquiries. The Panel had seen this email. Subsequently, by an email dated 20 February 2026 from Mr Godric Jolliffe, National Legal Officer of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, it was confirmed that the Registrant would not be attending nor be represented at this hearing.

6.    Mr Maughan, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the Panel should consider the case in the absence of the Registrant.

7.    The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

8.    The Panel was aware that a decision to proceed in the absence of the Registrant is one to be taken with great care and caution. However, the Panel decided to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The reasons were as follows: 

a.    Service of the appropriate Notice of this hearing had been properly effected.

b.    The Registrant had, by the emails referred to above, stated that he would not be attending this hearing.

c.    The Panel kept in mind the guidance contained in the Practice Note issued by the HCPTS. 

d.    There was no reason to suppose that an adjournment would result in the future attendance of the Registrant.

e.    There was a public interest in proceeding in order to bring these proceedings to a conclusion, which was the wish of both the Registrant and the HCPC. 

f.    The Panel could not identify any prejudice to the Registrant that could arise from proceeding in his absence. 

g.    The Registrant had voluntarily absented himself.

Proceeding in private 

9.    By the Addendum Skeleton Argument, adopted and summarised by Mr Maughan, the HCPC submitted that this hearing should be conducted partly in private. Its reasons as set out in the Addendum Skeleton Argument are those set out below:

“In this case, the HCPC submits that the Registrant’s health (and family) are legitimately considered part of his private life and reference to such during the hearing or within the panel’s written decision should remain private as is required by the law and Panel rules. 

“In respect of privacy, the HCPC has received correspondence from the Registrant’s representative seeking an entirely private hearing on the basis there are likely to be significant references to the Registrant’s health and family during the hearing and panel’s judgment and that it would not be practical to hold the hearing partly in private.”

“The HCPC’s position is that the number of references made to health during the hearing are anticipated to be limited and as such the panel are able to conduct the hearing partly in private and in doing so, will ensure a fair balance is struck between the rights of the Registrant and the rights of the public” 

10.    The Panel had sight of the email from Mr Godric Jolliffe which applied for the hearing to be conducted wholly in private. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that for the reasons expressed by Mr Maughan, this hearing should be conducted partly in public and partly in private. The Panel determined that it was practicable to proceed in this way. The Panel would receive in private those matters that related to the health or the family life of the Registrant but otherwise, this was a public hearing. The transcript of the hearing would be redacted to reflect this ruling.

Background (taken from the Skeleton Argument)

11.    The Registrant is registered as a Physiotherapist and at the time of the Allegation was employed as a chartered Physiotherapist at Nuffield Health, Canary Wharf Medical Centre. 

12.    On 1 February 2024, the Registrant’s line manager (RP) made the Registrant aware that cannabis had been smelt in the Registrant’s clinic room on a number of occasions.

13.    On 7 February 2024, the Registrant confirmed during an investigatory meeting that the smell of cannabis which was present in his room at the Canary Wharf Medical Centre on 25 January 2024 was due to the fact he had rolled a ‘joint’. The Registrant confirmed that he had gotten into a habit of rolling one at work before cycling home.

14.    As a result of the investigatory meeting, the Registrant was suspended from work pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations which included possession of drugs on Nuffield Health premises which had not been prescribed by a doctor or bought over a pharmacy counter.

15.    On 12 February 2024, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC in light of his suspension.

16.    During a disciplinary hearing on 20 March 2024, the Registrant confirmed that he did not bring cannabis in to work all the time and instead it had occurred a handful of times since September/October 2023.

17.    As a result of the findings, the Registrant was dismissed for gross misconduct effective 21 March 2024.

18.    The matter was subsequently investigated by the HCPC. 

19.    On 12 March 2025, an Investigating Committee Panel (ICP) found a case to answer in respect of the above matter. It referred the Allegation set out above (which was amended on 5 August 2025) to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

20.    An email was sent to the Registrant’s representative regarding the consensual disposal process on 1 May 2025 indicating that the HCPC would be prepared to conclude the case by way of consensual disposal. The proposed sanction was a 12-month Caution Order. 

21.    On 15 May 2025, the representative confirmed that the Registrant was willing to explore consensual disposal and following this, via email on 21 August 2025, provided a signed Consensual Disposal Pro-forma dated 20 August 2025.

22.    Within the Pro-forma, the Registrant admitted the misconduct particulars at 1 and 2 of the Allegation and confirmed that he had read the relevant Practice Note on disposal of cases by consent. 

23.    The Registrant indicated on the form that a 12-month Caution Order was an appropriate sanction and requested that his character references and testimonials be provided to the Panel.

Written submissions of the HCPC

24.    The submissions of the HCPC, as set out in the Skeleton Argument and adopted by Mr Maughan, are set out below. For ease of reference the paragraph numbers used in the Skeleton Argument have been retained, but are shown in brackets; the text is shown in italics.

Principles 

(18) The Health Professions Order 2001 does not explicitly provide for consent arrangements.

(19) However, in R v Home Office Policy and Advisory Board for Forensic Pathology5, Justice Newman endorsed the following position as outlined by Andrew Pugh QC at a previous hearing “...The Tribunal does have intrinsic powers, simply by virtue of being a tribunal. It has the obligation to observe the rules of natural justice and to conduct its proceedings fairly and to decide procedural matters which are not expressly dealt with in the rules... It may well be that a tribunal acting fairly can fill in the procedural gaps". 

(20) Although not provided for in rules or legislation, the relevant HCPTS practice note on consent cases provides assistance to Committees regarding the procedure for allowing a case, where suitable, to be disposed of by consent. 

(21) Consensual disposal is a case management tool which can be used in order to dispose of a case efficiently without a full substantive hearing. The relevant criteria applied in order to determine whether a case is suitable for consensual disposal are as follows: 

1. a case to answer decision has been made by the Investigating Committee 

2. the Registrant is willing to admit both the substance of the allegations and that their fitness to practise is impaired 

3. the Registrant has shown insight into the key elements of the allegations and a willingness to address them 

4. any remedial action proposed by the Registrant, which will form part of the consent order, is consistent with the expected outcome if the case was to proceed to a contested hearing 

5. the appropriate level of public protection is being secured in the case 

6. there is no detriment to the wider public interest if the case did not proceed to a full contested hearing. 

(22). The HCPC submits that this matter is suitable for consensual disposal for the following reasons. 

- A case to answer decision was made in respect of the Registrant on 12 March 2025. 

- The Registrant admits the Allegation which includes that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his misconduct. 

- The Registrant has shown insight into his misconduct and its impact upon his fitness to practise. 

- The Registrant has provided a detail reflective statement via his representative which demonstrates a number of positive steps since the incident to improve his personal and professional life, commencing with an abstinence from cannabis use from February 2024. [Redacted]. 

- Furthermore, the Registrant has provided references from two new employers, Pure Physiotherapy and Physico Health, who attest to the Registrant’s professionalism as well as two testimonials from individuals [redacted] who attest to the Registrant’s positive character. 

- If the case were to proceed to a final hearing, a Committee would be invited to consider the issue as being isolated with a low risk of repetition. Furthermore, the Registrant has demonstrated good insight and shown appropriate remediation. As such, a 12 month caution order would likely be the minimum action required in order to protect the public. 

- It is submitted that a more restrictive or lesser sanction would be a disproportionate outcome in the Registrant’s case. 

- Finally, given the nature and length of the disposal preferred and as the appropriate degree of public protection would be secured, it is submitted that there is no detriment to the wider public interest should the case not proceed to a full contested hearing. 

(23). On the basis of the above factors, it is the HCPC’s position that the relevant criteria are met. It is submitted that the punitive sanction proposed is adequate to protect the public and serve the wider public interest and it is neither necessary nor proportionate for a final hearing to take place for the same outcome to be achieved. 

Conclusion 

(24). The Committee is invited to approve the application for consensual disposal and impose a caution order for a period of 12 months on the basis the imposition of this order will allow the Committee to adequately address all of the regulatory concerns identified in this case.”

Oral submissions made by Mr Maughan on behalf of the HCPC

25.    Mr Maughan made submissions to the Panel. In summary, he adopted the Skeleton Argument as his submission to the Panel. He said that the Registrant had signed all of the relevant documents and the relevant criteria had been satisfied. In this context, he reiterated the matters and submissions set out in paragraph 22 of the Skeleton Argument. He summarised the relevant history. He identified the ways in which the Registrant had addressed his failings. In particular, Mr Maughan referred to the evidence of the Registrant’s insight and remediation. He submitted that the consensual disposal would sufficiently protect the public and would address the public interest. He said that there was a low risk of repetition. He referred to the positive testimonials. By reference to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy, Mr Maughan identified the considerations that are relevant to making a Caution Order. He submitted that any other Order or outcome would be inappropriate or disproportionate. He said that there were no reasons of a public interest nature to stand in the way of a consensual disposal or to require a substantive fitness to practise hearing.

Stated position of the Registrant 

26.    The Panel had also seen the signed Consensual Disposal Pro-forma form dated 20 August 2025. The Registrant admitted the substance of the Allegation. The Registrant accepted that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conduct. 

Decision 

27.    The Panel considered the submissions of the HCPC as set out in the Skeleton Argument and adopted by Mr Maughan. The Panel took account of the position of the Registrant as stated in the documents identified above. The Panel further considered all the other documents that had been submitted or referred to.

28.    The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

29.    In deciding whether or not to approve a consensual disposal of this matter, the Panel had regard to the Practice Note published by the HCPTS in March 2018 entitled ‘Disposal of Cases by Consent’, together with the policy document annexed to it as Annex A. The Panel also noted the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which came into effect on 2 March 2026. The Panel noted that all of the relevant procedural criteria had been complied with by both the HCPC and the Registrant.

30.    The Panel concluded that the consensual disposal should be approved and that an order should be made in the terms set out below. Its reasons included the following:

•    The HCPC had set out a full and detailed explanation of the reasons for seeking approval of the proposed 12-month Caution Order.

•    The Panel noted the decision of the ICP.

•    The Registrant had admitted the substance of the Allegation. 

•    The Registrant had admitted that his fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct.

•    The Registrant had demonstrated remorse and insight into his failings.

•    It was clear that the Registrant had taken substantial steps to remediate his conduct. 

•    The conduct had not been repeated since the incident. 

•    The risk of repetition was very low.

•    The Panel had noted the supportive testimonials and references that had been submitted by the Registrant.

•    The public would be adequately protected by the 12-month Caution Order. Such an outcome was also in the interests of the Registrant. Moreover, it would address and safeguard the public interest. Any other Order or outcome would either be inappropriate or disproportionate.

•    The Panel concluded that a well-informed member of the public would conclude that this matter is properly disposed of by the consensual outcome sought by both the Registrant and the HCPC. 

31.    For all the reasons set out above, the Panel determined to approve the outcome sought, namely the imposition of a 12-month Caution Order.

That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr William R Hunter with a Caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of 1 year from the date this order comes into effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for ​​William R Hunter​