Luke Hopper

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing under Rule 6(1) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (“the Rules”) was sent to the Registrant by email on 30 January 2026. The notice included the information required by Rule 6 and was sent at least 28 days before the hearing date, as required by Rule 6(2).

2. The Panel had sight of a confirmation of email delivery, dated 30 January 2026. The HCPC Certificate of Registration dated 30 January 2026 confirmed the Registrant’s email address registered with the HCPC to which notice of the hearing was sent.

3. The Panel was also provided with an email dated 4 May 2026, sent by the Registrant to the HCPC confirming his knowledge of the hearing.

4. The Panel was also provided with an email dated 4 May 2026, sent by the Registrant to the HCPC confirming his knowledge of the hearing.

Application to proceed in the absence of the Registrant 

5. The Registrant was not present at the hearing. Ms King, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She referred to the email provided by the Registrant in which he stated he would not be attending the hearing and noted that the Registrant had not requested an adjournment of the hearing.

6. Ms King submitted that it was apparent that the Registrant did not intend to be present at this hearing and had voluntarily waived his right to attend. She submitted that it was therefore in the public interest for the Panel to proceed and consider the case today.

7. The Panel considered the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was reminded of its discretion to proceed in absence under Rule 11. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note, Proceeding in Absence (August 2025), which sets out relevant guidance from the cases of R v Jones (Anthony) [2004] 1 AC 1HL and GMC v Adeogba and GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. The Panel was careful to remember that its discretion to proceed in absence must be exercised with the utmost caution and with the fairness of the hearing at the forefront of its mind.

8. The Panel noted that the Registrant was given appropriate notice of today’s hearing date. The Panel considered the submission of the Registrant in which he set out the following;

[Redacted]

9. [Redacted].

10. The Panel was mindful of fairness to the HCPC and its witnesses who were ready and scheduled to give evidence at this hearing. The Panel noted that the allegations date back to 2023 and further delay is likely to impact on witnesses and their recollection.

11. The Panel accepted that there would be a disadvantage to the Registrant if the Panel proceeded to reach a determination of the allegations in his absence. However, the Registrant has submitted written submissions, which the Panel could take into account.

12. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself from this hearing and has waived his right to attend. He has not sought an adjournment. The Panel concluded that there is no indication that the Registrant would attend on a future date if this matter were adjourned today. The Panel concluded it is important in the public interest that these fitness to practise allegations should now be resolved as soon as possible and was satisfied it is in the public interest for this hearing to proceed today.

Application for proceedings to be conducted in private

13. [Redacted].

14. The Panel took legal advice and referred to the HCPTS Practice Note, Private Hearings (February 2025). The Panel was reminded that HCPC hearings are held in public in the interests of open justice and transparency. There is provision for the Panel to hold part or all of a hearing in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Rules if the Panel is satisfied that to do so is in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the Registrant. [Redacted]

15. [Redacted] As such the Panel accepted the HCPC's application that the entirety of the hearing should be heard in private. The remainder of the hearing will therefore be in private.

First application to amend the Allegation

16. At the outset of the hearing, Ms King on behalf of the HCPC applied to amend Allegation 5 to read as follows:

On 20 March 2024, you accepted a caution from Northumbria police for the following charges:

Theft by Employee
Fraud by Abuse of Position
Make False Representation to Make gain for self or another or cause loss to other/expose to risk.

On 20 March 2024, you accepted a caution from Northumbria police for the following charges:

Theft of controlled drugs
Fraud by False Representation
Attempted Fraud by False Representation

17. Ms King submitted the amendment to Allegation 5 accurately reflected the caution which was accepted by the Registrant. She noted at the time of drafting the allegations, this allegation was prepared on the basis of correspondence with the police. Ms King submitted the application to amend was necessary to ensure the allegation accurately reflects the caution which was accepted. Ms King submitted that the amendment does not substantively change the nature of the allegation, but instead correctly reflects the caution which the Registrant in fact accepted. She therefore submitted that there is no prejudice caused to the Registrant by the amendment.

18. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice from the Legal Assessor which included reference to the case of Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319. The Panel agreed to amend allegation 5 in order to accurately reflect the caution accepted by the Registrant. The Panel considered that there was no prejudice caused to the Registrant accepting this amendment.

Application to adduce evidence 

19. During the course of the evidence of Mr JP, he confirmed that he may have further documentation which may assist with some of the Panel’s question, in respect of the Registrant’s employment status and the work undertaken by the Registrant at JMP. The Panel therefore requested that Mr JP provide the following documentation if available;

i)    any documentation in relation to the Registrant’s employment at JMP
ii)   any documentation in respect of method in which the Registrant was paid
iii)  any documentation relating to requests for drugs by the registrant from wells pharmacy        or other pharmacies
iv)  any documentation confirming the last date the Registrant worked with JMP
v)   a copy of a blank home office form

20. Mr JP was able to obtain a number of documents in respect of the Registrant’s employment in order to assist with the Panel’s questions. The HCPC therefore made an application to adduce these documents, noting that they have not been produced previously. The HCPC submitted that the documents were relevant and it was fair to adduce them even at a late stage as the HCPC had only been put on notice of the issues raised by the Registrant in respect of his potential employment with JMP on 4 May 2026.

21. The Panel received legal advice in respect of the admission of additional documentation and the criteria or relevance and fairness. The Panel considered in the circumstances that the documentation was relevant to the issues in the case and it was fair to admit the documentation as it clarified a point raised by the Registrant in respect of the allegation.

Second application to amend the Allegation

22. Following receipt of the additional documentation provided by Mr JP, the HCPC applied to amend the allegation as follows;

On various dates around November 2023, when attempting to obtain controlled drugs from pharmacies, you provided the details of your previous employer

a private company

when asked for a current reference, despite not working for that employer private company since 2021.

23. Ms King on behalf of the HCPC submitted that removing the words your previous employer and inserting a private company more accurately reflected the evidence provided by Mr JP but did not alter the substance of the charge. Ms King submitted that the amendment does not substantively change the nature of the allegation, but instead correctly reflects the evidence recently obtained. She therefore submitted that there is no prejudice caused to the Registrant by the amendment.

24. The Panel heard and accepted legal advice from the Legal assessor which included reference to the case of Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466(Admin). The Panel agreed to the amendment in order to accurately reflect the evidence provided by Mr JP. The Panel considered that there was no prejudice caused to the Registrant accepting this amendment as the nature and gravity of the charge had not changed.

Decision

25. The Panel concluded that the conduct found proved in this case is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Panel determined that striking off is the only appropriate and proportionate order in the Registrant’s case.

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

Interim Order

Application

1. Ms King made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period and allow for any appeal to be disposed of.

2. Ms King submitted that an Interim Order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. In support of her submissions that those grounds are satisfied, she relied on the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues in this case.

Decision

3. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders dated January 2026. The Panel may impose an Interim Order if it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the Registrant.

4. Having regard to the Interim Orders Practice Note, the Panel first considered whether it was appropriate to consider the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence.

5. The Panel took into account that the Notice of Hearing dated 30 January 2026, advised the Registrant that such an application may be made. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was given notice of the ability of the Panel to impose an Interim Order after sanction.

6. The Panel also concluded that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence in accordance with its earlier decision on proceeding in absence.
 
7. In its decision on impairment the Panel decided that there is a high risk of repetition. Consequently, the Panel concluded that an Interim Order is necessary for protection of members of the public. An Interim Order is also otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel for its substantive sanction decision.

8. The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period but concluded that they would not provide sufficient protection for the public for the same reasons as set out in the substantive decision.

9. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

10. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An order of that length is necessary because if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order, the final resolution of that appeal could take 18 months.

11. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Striking Off Order, the Interim Suspension Order will fall away when the time within which he could have commenced an appeal expires.

Order

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

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 Luke Hopper