Jonathan Chaplin

1.     The Panel noted the HCPC’s case summary, which set out the background to this matter. 

2.     The Registrant is an HCPC registered Radiographer and was previously employed by the Oxford University Hospitals Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’).

3.     Thames Valley Police received a referral relating to the Registrant from a UK Regional Organised Crime Unit, regarding online communications on the social media platform LYCOS, with one of their undercover officers operating a profile of a 12-year-old girl called “Chloe”. 

4.     The police report dated 29 January 2025 notes that on 16 and 17 June 2022, the Registrant as user “Charlie _c67” contacted Chloe online, Chloe made it clear that she was 12 years old. The Registrant sent Chloe a photo of two adult males wearing suits. The Registrant started to talk about what she was wearing and commented on her legs. The conversation continued the next day and the Registrant called her. During a second phone call, the Registrant asked Chloe about her previous partner and how old she was, also asking if she liked older boys. The conversation continued on WhatsApp, where the Registrant asked her directly about her sexual experiences and masturbation, before instructing her on what to do.

5.     On 21 July 2022, a warrant was executed and the Registrant was arrested by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of two offences: sexual communication with a child and inciting a child to engage in a sexual act. The Registrant was transported into police custody and was interviewed, where he gave a “no comment” interview.

6.     During that interview, the Registrant was told that devices seized during the warrant had been interrogated, which had traces of the username Charlie_c67 on it. He was also told that the image of him in a dinner suit was present on the device and that he had a telephone number stored in the name of Chloe.

7.     On 8 August 2022, the Registrant was suspended by the Trust and on 10 August 2022, the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC confirming that he had been suspended from the Trust.

8.     On 9 June 2023, the Registrant was dismissed from his role at the Trust.

9.     On 17 April 2025 at Oxford Crown Court, the Registrant pleaded guilty and was convicted of the following offences: 

a.     Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child

b.     Attempt to cause / incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity

10. The Registrant was sentenced on 29 May 2025 to the following:

a.     24 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months

b.     150 hours unpaid work

c.     Sexual Harm Prevention Order – 10 Years

d.     Sex Offenders Register – 10 Years

e.       Costs to be paid in 3 months

11. On 15 September 2025, the matter was considered by an Investigating Committee Panel who determined there was a case to answer and referred the allegation to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

Decision on Facts

12.   The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so the particulars of the Allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

13.   The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

14.   The Panel made the following findings of fact.

Particular 1 – Proved 

On 17 April 2025, you were convicted at Oxford Crown Court of:

a.     Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child

b.     Attempt to cause / incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity

15. With regard to Particular 1, the Panel was provided by the HCPC with evidence of the Certificate of Conviction dated 30 May 2025.
 
16. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that where a registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the Certificate of Conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules.
 
17. The Panel noted that a conviction allegation can be proved by the production of the certified copy of the Memorandum of Conviction. The Panel was satisfied from the evidence produced that Particular 1 was found proved.

Decision on Grounds

18. The HCPC rely on the statutory ground of conviction pursuant to Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Professions Order 2001, which provides that one of the grounds upon which an allegation may be made is that a registrant’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of:

‘a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence,’

19. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

20. The Panel found Particular 1 proved and was satisfied from the evidence produced that the ground for conviction was established.

Decision on Impairment 

21. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. There were no submissions from the Registrant as he was not in attendance however, the Panel had regard to his undated personal statement contained in the bundle. The Panel had careful regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations”.

22. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised the Panel to consider the criteria set out in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927.  

23. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conviction which involved serious sexual offences had brought the profession into disrepute and breached the high standards of personal and professional behaviour expected of registrants. Therefore, the Panel determined that limbs b) and c) of the Grant test were engaged:

Do our findings of fact, in respect of the doctors, or in this case, the nurse's misconduct show that his fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he has,

(a)   …

(b)  has the Reg in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute. 

(c)  Has the Reg in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.   

(d)  …

24. In accordance with the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581, the Legal Assessor advised the Panel to ask whether the Registrant’s conduct is easily remediable, whether it has in fact been remedied, and whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

25. When making its decision, the Panel also had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conviction and Caution Allegations” which sets out the following:

“The Panel’s task is to determine whether fitness to practise is impaired, based upon the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence concerned, and, if so, whether any sanction needs to be imposed…

In considering the nature, circumstances and gravity of the offence, Panels need to take account of public protection in its broadest sense, including whether the registrant’s actions bring the profession concerned into disrepute or may undermine public confidence in that profession. In doing so, Panels are entitled to adopt a 'retrospective' approach and consider the conviction as if the registrant was applying for registration with the HCPC.

In reaching its decision, a Panel should also have regard to any punishment or other order imposed by the courts, but must bear in mind that the sentence imposed is not a definitive guide to the seriousness of an offence”

26. The Panel concluded that remediation of this type of sexual misconduct is difficult given its attitudinal nature. It noted the sentencing remarks of the Judge who stated that as the Registrant had voluntarily attended the Lucy Faithfull Foundation course, this suggested that he was “capable of remediation.”
 
27. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction, the Panel took into account both the ‘personal’ and ‘public’ components of impairment.
 
28. The personal component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The public component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.

29. In respect of the personal component, the Panel noted that the Registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence involving engagement in sexual communication with a child and inciting a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity. The conduct was repeated in nature, directed towards an individual whom the Registrant believed to be a child, and gave rise to a serious risk of harm to the public. The panel noted that the seriousness of the offending is underscored by the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks dated 29 May 2025 and the fact that the Registrant received a custodial sentence of 24 months (albeit suspended).
 
30. The Panel is of the view that the Registrant’s conviction is at the upper end of the scale of seriousness and indicative of serious attitudinal concerns.
 

31. The Panel considered the Registrant’s personal statement and a reference which identified some evidence of remediation. It acknowledged that the Registrant entered guilty pleas at an early stage and had demonstrated a degree of remorse. The Panel noted that there was some evidence that the Registrant had taken steps towards remediating his behaviour such as engaging with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. The Panel also took into account the information provided in relation to his current unemployed status.

32. The Panel considered that the behaviour that led to his conviction is very difficult to remediate and it determined that the evidence provided in respect of his remediation was limited. The Panel determined that there is a high risk of repetition of the behaviour that led to the conviction.

33. The Panel next considered the important public interest considerations; that is, the public component of fitness to practise. It was mindful of the advice in the Grant case, which states:

“71 ... it is essential, when deciding whether fitness to practise is impaired, not to lose sight of the fundamental considerations … namely the need to protect the public and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour so as to maintain public confidence in the profession…In determining whether a practitioner's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct, the relevant panel should generally consider not only whether the practitioner continues to present a risk to members of the public in his or her current role, but also whether the need to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in the particular circumstances.”

34. In Grant, the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) was referred to and approved. This states:

“[62] Any approach to the issue of whether a doctor’s fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence [in the] profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour of the public in their doctors and that public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence…”

35. The Panel was mindful of its findings that the Registrant was convicted for a serious criminal offence involving a minor. The Panel had regard to paragraph 28 of the Practice Note on Impairment which states that, “there are some cases, including those involving serious attitudinal or behavioural issues, which may be more difficult to remediate or where public confidence in the profession requires a finding of impairment to be made.”

36. The Panel determined that its findings are serious and such a finding has an impact on the public and on public confidence in the profession. The Panel concluded that in the circumstances of this case, given the nature of the conviction, not to make a finding of current impairment would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator. It would also fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards. 

37. The Panel accordingly found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be currently impaired on the public and personal components.

Decisions on Sanction 

38. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Doyle on behalf of the HCPC. Mr Doyle submitted that sanction was a matter for the judgement of the Panel. He took the Panel to relevant parts of the HCPC Sanctions Policy and outlined the aggravating and mitigating factors.

39. As the Registrant was not in attendance, there were no submissions from the Registrant.

40. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.

41. With regard to mitigation, the Panel acknowledged the Registrants early plea of guilty at the Crown Court and noted that he had demonstrated some remorse.

42. By way of aggravating factors, the Panel noted as follows:

• The Registrant was convicted of a serious sexual criminal offence
• The offending behaviour was predatory in nature and directed at an individual who the Registrant believed was a child under the age of 13 years old, inciting them to engage in sexual activity
• There was a potential for significant risk of harm
• There was limited evidence of remediation and insight.

43. The Panel considered the updated guidance which includes guidance for sanctions in relation to serious cases.  The Panel had regard to paragraph 68 and noted the following factors which are relevant and underscore the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending behaviour:

·       Conduct which was sexual in nature or sexually motivated

·       Sexual abuse of children, the Registrants behaviour was directed at who he believed were children

·       Inclusion on a Sexual Offender’s database

·       Criminal conviction for serious offences

 
44. The Panel took into account paragraphs 117-124 of the guidance which relates specifically to sexual offences and paragraphs 130-134 which relates to convictions. The Panel noted that cases of this nature are likely to result in more restrictive sanctions.

45. In considering the nature of the Registrants behaviour, the Panel determined that it was serious and not an isolated incident. The evidence indicated a pattern of predatory behaviour towards someone who the Registrant believed was a minor. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct demonstrated no regard for the potential impact of his behaviour. The Panel also noted that his conduct created a significant potential risk of harm.

46. The Panel determined that, given the gravity of the Registrant’s conduct, this case was too serious for the Panel to consider mediation or to take no further action.

47. A Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s Conviction. In the absence of insight and sufficient evidence of remediation, the Panel determined that there was a high risk of repetition.

48. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s clinical capabilities were not in dispute. The Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate as the Panel could not formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s conviction. The Panel gave careful consideration to paragraph 155 of the guidance and noted that conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, involving conduct that was sexual in nature and convictions.

49. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 170 of the guidance and considered whether the conduct found proven indicates behaviour which is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Panel went on to consider paragraph 179 and noted that a Striking Off Order is appropriate for serious, and deliberate acts which include conduct which was sexual in nature, sexual abuse of children, inclusion on a Sexual Offender’s database and criminal convictions for serious offences. The Registrant was convicted for a serious sexual criminal offence and received a 24 month custodial sentence, suspended for 24 months.
 
50. In light of its conclusion regarding the seriousness of the concerns, the attitudinal nature of the Registrant’s behaviour surrounding his conviction, the lack of evidence of insight or remediation and the consequent risk of repetition, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate. In the Panel’s judgement, the criteria for a Striking Off Order were applicable in this case.

51. The Panel did consider the impact a Striking Off Order would have on the Registrant both professionally and financially, however it determined that the fortunes of individuals are outweighed by the public interest and the reputation of the profession.

52. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s Conviction was so serious as to be incompatible with him remaining on the Register. The Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order was required to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain confidence in the profession and its Regulator. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour was wholly unacceptable and was incompatible with registration.
 
43. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case was a Striking Off Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Jonathan Chaplin from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

As the Striking Off Order cannot take effect until the end of the 28-day appeal period, the Panel has considered whether an interim order is required in the specific circumstances of this case. It may only make an interim order if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest or in the Registrant's own interest until the sanction takes effect. 

Application

65. Mr Doyle, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period before the substantive Order came into effect or, if the Registrant appealed, until such time as the appeal was withdrawn or otherwise finally disposed of. 

Decision and reasons on interim order 

66. The Panel carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been given notice within the Notice of Hearing, dated 25 March 2026, of the HCPC’s intention to apply for an Interim Order to cover any appeal period. It considered the same factors applied as for its decision to proceed in the substantive hearing, in particular that he had waived his right to attend and it was both fair and in the public interest to proceed. 

67. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Order was required on both public protection and public interest grounds. The Panel had regard to the facts found proved and the reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order in reaching its decision to impose an interim order. It determined that an interim order was required to protect the public and promote and maintain public confidence in the profession.

68. The Panel concluded that an interim conditions of practice order would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case, due to the reasons already identified in the panel’s determination for imposing the substantive order. 

69. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, to protect the public and being in the public interest. 

70. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Jonathan Chaplin