Rodrigo J Cabral Rodrigues

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly served with notice of this hearing by email dated 17 December 2025 in accordance with the Health and Care Professions (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, as amended (the Rules). Delivery of notice was confirmed by email of the same date.
Proceeding in absence
2. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Registrant on the grounds that he had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend. She referred the Panel to an email dated 18 February 2026 in which the Registrant notified his case manager at the HCPC in relation to a preliminary hearing in April 2026 that he would not attend that hearing and did not intend to engage in the proceedings.
3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence on the following grounds:
• The matters alleged against the Allegation are serious. They allegedly occurred in July 2021. It would be contrary to the public interest that the hearing should be further delayed without some compelling reason.
• The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to attend.
• There was no application for an adjournment.
• The Panel considered that the Registrant would be unlikely to attend at a future date should the hearing be adjourned, having regard to his expressed intention not to engage in the proceedings.
• The Panel was advised by Ms Bernard-Stevenson that, if the hearing were adjourned, it could be many months before another hearing date could be scheduled.
• The HCPC witnesses had arranged to take time off from their professional duties to attend this hearing.
• There would be a risk of the witnesses’ recollection of events being eroded by the further passage of time.
• There would also be a risk that the HCPC witnesses would be reluctant to continue engaging in these proceedings should they be adjourned.
4. In all the above circumstances, the Panel determined that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence and, whilst the Panel recognised that the Registrant was likely to be disadvantaged by not participating in the hearing, that was his choice.

Background
5. The Registrant is a registered Radiographer.
6. On 25 August 2021, the HCPC received a referral form from Ms Monica Chapman, Junior HR Business Partner of the Registrant’s former employer, InHealth Ltd (InHealth). The referral alleged that the Registrant
had behaved in an inappropriate manner towards a Healthcare Assistant, Colleague A, by making unwanted sexualised remarks. It was further alleged that the Registrant had touched Colleague A inappropriately.
7. Due to these concerns, the Registrant was suspended from his employment and a disciplinary hearing was held on 30 July 2021.
8. The Registrant’s employment was terminated following the disciplinary hearing.
9. The referral resulted in these proceedings.

Application to admit hearsay evidence
10. Ms Bernard-Stevenson made an application to admit the hearsay evidence of Colleague A, including her witness statement and other evidence. She referred the Panel to the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery in respect of the general principles to be applied and relied on the following grounds:
• Colleague A had not attended the hearing despite exhaustive efforts by the HCPC to secure her attendance.
• There was some indication that Colleague A might have mental health issues which might have a bearing on her non-attendance.
• Colleague A’s evidence was the sole and decisive evidence in relation to a number of the Particulars of Allegation.
• The Particulars of Allegation raised concerns for public protection and there was a strong public interest in the Panel being able to reach a determination based on all the available evidence.
• Should the Panel agree to admit the hearsay evidence, they could decide in due course what weight, if any, to place on it.
11. The Legal Assessor endorsed the references by Ms Bernard-Stevenson to the relevant case law and referred the Panel to Rule 10(1)(c) of the Rules which provides that:
“the Committee may hear or receive evidence which would not be admissible in such (civil) proceedings if it is satisfied that admission of that evidence is necessary in order to protect members of the public”
12. The Panel accepted the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and the advice of the Legal Assessor and decided to admit the hearsay evidence of Colleague A. The Panel would decide what weight, if any, to give to the hearsay evidence of Colleague A, having heard all the available evidence.

The evidence
13. In addition to the hearsay evidence of Colleague A, the Panel received witness statements and heard oral evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the HCPC:
• Przemyslaw Mendyk, who was Operations Manager for InHealth and was the Registrant’s line manager at the relevant time.
• Colleague B, a Senior Radiographer employed via an agency to work at InHealth. He worked with the Registrant and Colleague A on 5 and 6 July 2021, when he allegedly witnessed the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleague A. On 7 July 2021 he was informed by Colleague A that she had been sexually assaulted by the Registrant.
• Nina Dolby, the Employee Relations Advisor for InHealth at the relevant time, who was appointed to carry out an investigation on behalf of InHealth into the concerns raised by Colleague A and produced her report dated 26 July 2021.
14. The Panel was also provided with Ms Dolby’s notes of her interviews with Colleague A, Colleague B and the Registrant respectively.

Colleague A’s evidence
15. By email to Mr Przemyslaw dated 14 July 2021, Colleague A raised a complaint about the Registrant’s conduct towards her as follow:
• At a shift on 5 July 2021, he persistently made sexual remarks and suggestions to her in the course of the shift on 5 July 2021, which made her feel increasingly uncomfortable. This was in the presence of Colleague B.
• At a shift on 6 July 2021, he persistently made sexual remarks and suggestions to her in the course of the shift, despite being asked by Colleague B to stop doing so.
• At the same shift on 6 July 2021, the Registrant told Colleague A that she was lazy and dumb and that “all English people are dumb and lazy and all English girls put out that why they go to Portugal to go with a real man”. The Registrant continued to make such remarks on and off throughout the shift, despite being asked on several occasions to stop by Colleague B and Colleague A.
• At a shift on 7 July 2021, not attended by Colleague B, the Registrant resumed his sexual comments to Colleague A. Shortly before the end of the shift, at about 18:55, the Registrant grabbed Colleague A’s breast and bottom. She pushed him, asked him what he was doing and told him that he had sexually assaulted her. The Registrant just laughed. Colleague A was so upset that she got her bag and left the shift early.
• On returning home, Colleague A rang Colleague B to tell him what had happened. Colleague B told her that she should report the matter but she was concerned that it would affect her chance of getting a permanent position with InHealth.
• On 8 July 2021, the Registrant telephoned Colleague A and asked her to meet him so that he could collect his laundry from her, which she had previously agreed to clean for him. She told him that she was very upset about what had happened at work the previous day but he said it was a joke and would not happen again. She drove by car to meet him and hand over his laundry. He then persuaded her to give him a lift into Harlow while his car was in a garage being fixed. Colleague A suggested that they could go for a coffee while they waited but the Registrant replied that he didn’t want a coffee and wanted her to give him a “blow job” and “christen” her car. Colleague A became very scared, because of what had happened the day before. She drove the Registrant straight back to the garage and told him to get out and that he had left her no choice but to report him. The Registrant laughed at her, telling her that no-one would believe her as she was “stupid and dumb” and if she said anything he could make her lose her job “just like that” and clicked his fingers.
16. Colleague A was interviewed by Ms Dolby on 16 July 2021. By way of background information she stated that:
• She had worked together with the Registrant on many occasions.
• She explained that she, the Registrant and Colleague B worked together as a team. They had lunch together, she had sometimes given them lifts in her car and a couple of times she had offered to do the Registrant’s laundry, including on Monday 5 July 2021, because he had nowhere to wash his clothes. On another occasion, when she had no water at home, he had used his Holiday Inn Express loyalty points to enable her to spend a night at the Holiday Inn.
17. Colleague A stated in the interview that the Registrant’s behaviour towards her had recently changed. She referred to instances on Tuesday 6 July 2021 and Wednesday 7 July 2021 when
• He kept pulling down his mask and flicking his tongue at her.
• He kept asking her about her sex life.
• He asked if she had had anal sex.
• Said to her in the presence of a patient “stop begging me for sex”.
• Grabbed her breast with one hand and her buttock with the other and pulled her towards him.
18. On returning the Registrant’s laundry to him on 8 July 2021 in the circumstances referred to above, the Registrant said that they could find a secluded woodland and she could give him a “blow job” or they could “christen” her car.
19. Colleague A made a statement for these proceedings dated 2 March 2023 in which she confirmed that she was employed as a Healthcare Assistant at InHealth via her agency. She was responsible for assisting Radiographers with screening and care of patients, which took place in mobile scanning vans located outside hospitals. The van had a scanning room and a control room. It was a small, enclosed space. There were usually three workers – two Radiographers and a Healthcare Assistant - in the control room throughout the shift.
20. At the time of the incidents detailed below, Colleague A was working in a mobile scanning unit located at the Lister Hospital in Stevenage.
21. The Registrant was a Radiographer employed by InHealth and had been employed there for some years. Colleague A frequently worked alongside him. They had a good, professional, working relationship.
22. Her working relationship with the Registrant started to become strained following his return from Portugal in or around the start of July 2021, which was between the two COVID-19 lockdowns. Colleague A noticed a change in the Registrant’s behaviour after he became aware that she had split from her fiancé.
23. Prior to the start of Colleague A’s shift on Monday 5 July 2021, the Registrant texted her saying ‘don’t forget the G string’ [Particular 1g].
24. The shift on 5 July 2021 comprised the Registrant, Colleague B as the other Radiographer, and Colleague A. During the shift the Registrant made a number of sexually suggestive comments and gestures towards her, which became increasingly intrusive and made her feel uncomfortable. For example:
• The Registrant saw a picture of Colleague A’s 29-year-old daughter as the background on her phone and made a comment about having a threesome with them [Particular 1a)viii].
• The Registrant made a comment about how small Colleague A was and how he could ‘throw (her) around the bedroom’ [Particular 1a)iii].
• He also winked at Colleague A and blew her kisses [Particular 1c].
• The Registrant made these comments and gestures to Colleague A despite being asked by her to stop [Particular 1e].
• As the area in which they were working was quite small, the Registrant would brush past Colleague A in such a way that his genitals touched her through his clothing [Particular 1h].
• During a time that Colleague A was alone with the Registrant, he grabbed his private parts and said that he bet she wanted that, or words to that effect [Particular 1a)ii].
25. On Tuesday 6 July 2021, Colleague A again worked alongside the Registrant and Colleague B. The Registrant continued making sexually suggestive comments towards her, for example:
• He asked her whether she had had anal sex [Particular 1a)vii].
• He put his fingers either side of his mouth and started doing things with his tongue, saying the Colleague A ‘do you want me to do that down there’, or words to that effect, and would pretend that a woman was giving oral sex by putting his tongue in his cheek [Particular 1a)iv].
• Many of these comments were made by the Registrant in the presence of Colleague B and continued despite Colleague B asking him to stop [Particular 1f]
26. The Registrant made further comments about how English people are dumb and lazy and English girls go to Portugal to be with real men or words to that effect [Particular 3]
27. When, during the shift on 6 July 2021, Colleague A threatened to report the Registrant, he replied that nobody would believe her because she was only an assistant and he was a Radiographer, saying that she was dumb and stupid [Particular 4].
28. On 7 July 2021, Colleague A received a telephone call from the Registrant that she was required to do an additional shift that day. When she expressed reluctance, the Registrant told her to “Get her lazy arse out of bed” or words to that effect [Particular 1b)i].
29. During the shift on 7 July 2021, the Registrant resumed his sexual remarks to Colleague A, for example:
• He said that he bet that she would like him to bend her over and ‘once you get a bit of this, you would never go back’ [Particular 1a)ii].
• In front of a patient, he said to Colleague A “stop begging me for sex” or words to that effect [Particular 1a)i]
30. Towards the end of the shift on 7 July 2021, when Colleague A was sitting at her desk within the control room, having previously filled up a syringe, the Registrant said to her “Oi dummy, come here and look what you have fucking done”, or words to that effect [Particular 1b)ii]. As Colleague A went to see what the Registrant was referring to, he approached her, grabbed her breast with one hand [Particular 2i], put his other hand on her buttock [Particular 2ii] and pulled her body towards his [Particular 2iii]. He squeezed her so hard that she had a bruise on her breast and a mark on her buttock immediately afterwards.
31. Having released herself, Colleague A picked up her mobile phone and bag and ran out of the unit before the end of the shift. She drove straight to her brother’s home to tell him what had happened. She was sick twice during the drive. When she returned home, she called Colleague B and burst into tears. She explained that she was too scared to go into work the next day. Colleague B reassured her and told her that she needed to report the Registrant.
32. On Thursday 8 July 2021, Colleague A remembered that she had already agreed to pick up the Registrant in order to return his laundry. Before doing so, she spoke to him by telephone and he promised not to make any comments or touch her again.
33. She met the Registrant at the Volkswagen garage in Harlow. He asked her whether she could give him a lift to town, while he waited for his car to be ready. She initially refused because of the incidents on the previous day. However, she relented after he had apologised and promised not to touch her or to make inappropriate comments. On the return journey to the garage, the Registrant once again made sexual comments, suggesting that they could go to a secluded woodland to “christen” the car [Particular 1a)vi]. She told him that she had had enough and that his comments were making her feel sick. She stopped at traffic lights and told him to get out. She told him that she could not believe his behaviour and that she was going to report him. He reiterated that nobody would believe her and if she reported him, she would lose her job and he clicked his fingers in her face [Particular 5a]. 34. Shortly after the incident on 8 July 2021, Colleague A reported the Registrant to InHealth. Thereafter she was interviewed and made a statement which she confirmed as being accurate.
35. Colleague A stated that, as a result of the Registrant’s behaviour, she was “a bag of nerves”. She was worried about going into work. Her confidence had suffered and she no longer trusted anyone. She would not go out unless with her family. She stated “it feels like I am being held back, or like I have done something wrong, which is heart wrenching. I try to be a good person and this is what has happened for trying to help people and be kind. My mum and dad do not know what has happened and they think I am having a breakdown. I still have nightmares about what has happened and immediately after the above incident, I was placed on medication to help with my anxiety and depression”.
Mr Mendyk’s evidence
36. He was Operations Manager at InHealth at the relevant time and managed the mobile CT services. He was the Registrant’s line manager.
37. The Registrant was employed in the capacity of a Senior CT Radiographer, working within the mobile CT scanning department, and was employed by InHealth from 14 January 2019 to 5 August 2021.
38. Colleague A was a Healthcare Assistant who was employed via an agency. She completed regular locum shifts for InHealth. He was aware that she was hoping for a permanent position as a Healthcare Assistant and that, for his part, he would have been happy for her to be employed on a permanent basis but that no such job became available.
39. On the afternoon of Monday 12 July 2021, Colleague A telephoned him to complain about the Registrant’s conduct towards her which included inappropriate comments to her and one occasion of inappropriate touching. She reported that the comments, but not the touching, had been witnessed by Colleague B. Mr Mendyk explained that she would need to provide a written statement and that he would speak with Human Resources (HR). He asked her if she wanted him to inform her agency and she said no. She told him that her motivation for reporting what had happened was to prevent other women from having a similar experience, but she was anxious that the incident remain as confidential as possible.
40. Mr Mendyk was advised by Head of Operations to obtain statements from Colleague A and Colleague B. He received a statement from Colleague B on 13 July 2021 and from Colleague A on 14 July 2021.
41. After further discussions, Ms Dolby from HR was appointed as the Lead Investigator on or about 15 July 2021. She instructed Mr Mendyk that the Registrant was to be suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. On the same day, Mr Mendyk telephoned the Registrant and informed him that there had been an allegation made against him concerning inappropriate comments and inappropriate touching and that he was suspended with immediate effect until an investigation had been concluded. The Registrant said over the telephone “Is this about yesterday?” Mr Mendyk responded that he could not disclose any further details at that time and that his role was to inform him of the conditions of his suspension, i.e. that he would have full employee rights in terms of pay and welfare support, but that he could not access any of the Service’s IT systems, and that he was not permitted to contact any other employees. The Registrant expressed surprise and said that the allegation was “ridiculous”. Mr Mendyk sent the Registrant a letter confirming this decision.
42. Mr Mendyk stated that Colleague A contacted him to say that the Registrant was attempting to contact her after his suspension. He advised Colleague A not to engage with him.

Colleague B’s evidence
43. He stated that he had worked as a Senior Radiographer for InHealth since 2015. He was employed via the same agency as Colleague A.
44. He knew the Registrant as a colleague and worked about four or five shifts with him between the end of 2020 and approximately August 2021.
45. On Monday 5 July 2021, he was working with the Registrant on the mobile scanning unit located outside the back of Lister Hospital in Stevenage. There was room for three members of staff to be working on the unit at any given time. Colleague A was the other member of the team. He had worked with Colleague A for three to four shifts every week for more than a year and knew her well. Throughout the shift, the Registrant did make occasional sexual jokes. Colleague B could not recall any specific comments.
46. On Tuesday 6 July 2021, he worked again with the Registrant and Colleague A on the mobile scanning unit. The Registrant’s jokes the previous day had been inappropriate but the comments he made consistently throughout this shift were completely unacceptable.
47. Colleague B recalled that the Registrant was speaking to someone on his mobile phone several times during the shift. He was speaking in Portuguese so Colleague B did not know what the conversation was about but the Registrant sounded very upset.
48. Colleague A was struggling to understand how to attach the scanned images and email them to the right place. The Registrant consistently made rude comments about her intelligence. He used words to the effect of, “You’re an English dummy, you don’t know anything about computers” and he called her “stupid” numerous times. He did not stop making derogatory comments about her intelligence for the entire shift.
49. The Registrant also made numerous comments about English women being sexually promiscuous. He said that English women were “easy”, that they were “easy to lay down with a man” and only came to Mediterranean countries “looking for cock”. Colleague B noted that these comments were directed towards Colleague A. He also said, “You English people are only coming to my country for sex and for good looking men.” These comments made Colleague B uncomfortable because it was not appropriate to talk about sex at work, and it was not nice to hear such comments about English women.
50. At one point during the shift, the Registrant asked Colleague A, “Have you been to Portugal? Have you been with a Portuguese guy to see how good we are in bed” and he said, “Do you like to suck cocks?” Colleague A responded to this question by saying that she was not having that kind of behaviour, that she did not see people in that way, that she had been married for many years and could the Registrant please stop. She was polite but firm. His response was to say that he was only joking.
51. Colleague B noticed that whenever the Registrant made one of his remarks, the expression on Colleague A’s face made it clear that she was uncomfortable and unhappy. Colleague B asked the Registrant to step outside the mobile unit for a cigarette break. He told the Registrant to stop making the comments. The Registrant responded that it was a joke and that Colleague B should not make it a big issue. Colleague B said that the jokes were offensive and not funny, that they were making him uncomfortable, and he could tell that they were making Colleague A uncomfortable.
52. Colleague B said that the Registrant stopped his comments for maybe half an hour and then the comments started again. Colleague B said to Colleague A, “Don’t pay attention to him, he is just acting stupid, I don’t know why he is acting like this today”. Colleague B told the Registrant that Colleague A came from a Jewish family, that she was a grandmother, and that whatever opinion he had about English women, that this did not apply to Colleague A so it would be best if he would stop with his jokes.
53. Colleague B stated that from the start of the shift to the very end the Registrant was persistent with his insults about Colleague A’s intelligence and sexual comments. Colleague B could not remember any other specific words that he used. He did not witness any physical contact between the Registrant and Colleague A that was inappropriate.
54. Colleague B was not working on Wednesday 7 July 2021. At or just after 21.30, Colleague A telephoned him in a distressed state. She was crying and said “Please help me I don’t know what to do.” She explained that the Registrant had sexually grabbed her, that he had groped her bottom and her breasts while they were working together, and that he had grabbed his own genitals. Colleague B told her to report what had happened to the police. Colleague A was very hesitant. Colleague B told her that at a minimum she should report it to a manager at InHealth. He said that she had a duty to report it because it might happen to someone else and that, if she did not report it, he would be obliged to report it himself.
55. On 13 July 2021, Colleague B sent an email to Przemyslaw Mendyk, Operations Manager in which he gave an account of the shifts on 5 and 6 July and what Colleague A had told him on the evening of 7 July 2021. He attended an investigation interview over the telephone with someone from InHealth’s HR department. He had reviewed those notes and confirmed their accuracy.
56. In his oral evidence, Colleague B said that he had been on good terms with the Registrant and had a professional relationship with him. He confirmed that the Registrant was expert at his job and was good with patients. He had never previously had any problems with the Registrant. He said that he found it uncomfortable to say these things about a colleague but that his behaviour was at a minimum unprofessional and out of order. He felt very sorry about being a witness against a colleague but was obliged to say the truth: if he was silent, it might happen again.
57. Colleague B stated that a couple of days after Colleague A’s telephone call on 7 July 2021, he met her on a day when he was doing a shift. She had explained exactly what happened on 7 July 2021: how, between the scanning and operation areas, the Registrant pushed her in corner, blocked her, grabbed her breast and showed her his “genetic area[sic]”. Colleague B said that he tried to get Colleague A to report what had happened to the police. He told her that she must report it to the company “as a minimum” and that, if she didn’t, he would do so because they had a duty to other people.
58. Colleague B described Colleague A as a normal person and not over -sensitive. She was very friendly, open and helpful and he regarded her as honest and truthful. He said that he could not find any reasons why she would lie to him about these incidents.
59. Colleague B acknowledged that he had not referred to the latter meeting with Colleague A in his witness statement but explained that he regarded it as a continuation of their telephone discussion on 7 July 2021 and had only lasted 5-10 minutes.

Ms Dolby’s evidence
60. Ms Dolby confirmed the content of her investigation report and her witness statement dated 11 July 2022.
61. She stated that she was not aware that the Registrant had produced a separate statement in relation to the later disciplinary hearing.
62. Her interview notes were written during the interviews but were not verbatim. Although she had not shown her interview notes to the Registrant for approval, they were attached to her investigation report and he had not raised any concerns about their accuracy. She had not told the Registrant that she was conducting a formal investigation and she felt that he did not understand its full implications.
63. She confirmed that the Registrant had denied the complaints of inappropriate behaviour “200%” and that he had characterised his comments to Colleague A as “banter” and an attempt to lighten the working environment. Colleague A had laughed at his jokes. Sometimes she told him to stop but afterwards had carried on laughing.

The Registrant’s response to the complaints
64. The Registrant was interviewed by Ms Dolby on 16 July 2021.In summary, he said that:
• He did not remember making any sexual comments.
• He believed that Colleagues A and B were not taking his remarks seriously and they were all having a joke.
• He was trying to lighten the working environment and did not mean to cause offence.
• He had no feelings of attraction for Colleague A nor she for him.
• He could not recall whether they asked him to stop making jokes.
• He did not remember asking Colleague A to perform a sexual act on him to christen her car.
• Colleague A never told him that she would report him.
• Nothing happened inside or outside work
65. The Registrant made a written statement which he read out to the disciplinary hearing. In summary, he stated that:
• It was never his intention to offend anyone.
• Because of his culture, it was in his nature to be kind to others as well as tactile.
• He always respected boundaries.
• He denied having a telephone conversation on 6 July 2021 in which, according to Colleague B, he appeared to be upset.
• He believed that he was good friends with Colleague A.
• He had obtained extra overtime for Colleague A on 7 July 2021 because there had been a problem with the other Healthcare Assistant. He admitted saying “you can lift your ass from the bed and let’s go to work because we are getting behind” but this was harmless banter.
• Colleague A had made various mistakes in her work on 7 July 2021 which the Registrant had to spend time correcting. He gave her permission to leave work early that day.
• Colleague A’s complaint that he had touched her inappropriately was completely false.
• Nothing untoward happened between him and Colleague A on 8 July 2021. After spending some time together in Harlow, where they had breakfast together, which he paid for, it was his suggestion that she should drop him off at the garage to wait for his car, so that she could get on with her day.
• It was untrue that she had threatened to report him or that he had threatened to have her lose her job if she did or that she had expelled him from her car.
• He suggested that her allegations against him were an attempt to cover up her own poor workmanship and lack of professionalism and that she was using the case in an attempt to get a permanent job with the company.
• He could not understand why Colleague B should say things against him because they had a good professional relationship and were friendly.

The Panel’s decision on facts
66. 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.
67. The Panel took into account all the documentary evidence contained in the hearing bundle and the oral testimony of Colleague B, Mr Mendyk and Ms Dolby. The Panel had regard to the Registrant’s response to the complaints both in his interview notes and his written statement to the disciplinary hearing.
68. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Bernard-Stevenson on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
69. The Panel believed the hearsay evidence of Colleague A for the following reasons:
• She was on friendly terms with the Registrant before the events which occurred between 5 and 8 July 2021. As evidence of her friendliness towards him, she agreed to wash his clothes and return them to him because he had no facilities to wash his own clothes.
• She had no apparent motive to fabricate a case against the Registrant. The Registrant’s suggestion in his written statement that she was seeking to cover up her own poor workmanship and to obtain a permanent job with InHealth was not, in the Panel’s judgement, plausible or credible.
• Her initial complaint to Colleague B that she had been sexually assaulted by the Registrant was made within a couple of hours of the alleged incident on 7 July 2021.
• Her various accounts of the Registrant’s conduct - in her initial conversation with Colleague B, her email to Mr Mendyk, her interview with Ms Dolby and her witness statement for these proceedings - were in all material respects consistent and any variation was in minor details rather than substance.
• Her description of the Registrant’s sexualised comments on 5 and 6 July 2021 was corroborated by Colleague B, whose evidence the Panel found credible and convincing.
• Colleague A was described by Colleague B as honest and truthful. He also described her as very friendly, open and kind. Mr Mendyk described her as professional, reliable and that she had a positive attitude.
• Colleague B gave evidence, which the Panel believed, that Colleague A was very reluctant to report the Registrant’s conduct and was pressured by him into doing so, having told her that he would otherwise report the matter himself.
• The Registrant did not specifically deny any of the sexual comments which he was alleged to have made to Colleague A on 5 and 6 July 2021, but sought to characterise them as harmless banter.
70. The Panel found that between 5 July 2021 and 8 July 2021, the Registrant conducted himself towards Colleague A, as alleged in Particulars 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and their respective sub-particulars and thereby did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The Panel found each of these Particulars and sub-particulars proved on the balance of probabilities.
71. Having found, as a matter of fact, that the Registrant conducted himself towards Colleague A in the manner alleged by her, and corroborated by Colleague B, during the shifts on 5 and 6 July 2021, the Panel found that his behaviour towards her on those dates showed a propensity of sexually aggressive behaviour which escalated to his sexual assault on her during the shift on 7 July 2021, as alleged in Particular 2.
72. With regard to Particular 6, the Panel found that the Registrant’s conduct as referred to in Particulars 1a, 1c, 1d, 1d, 1h, 2 and 3 was both overtly sexual and, by inference, sexually motivated in that was all for his sexual gratification. Particular 6 is therefore proved in its entirety.

Decision on grounds
73. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 to 6 of the Allegation amounted to misconduct as alleged in Particular 7.
74. The Panel was mindful that this is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgment, there being no standard or burden of proof.
75. The Panel took account of the submissions of Ms Bernard-Stevenson and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
76. Misconduct was defined in Roylance v GMC (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 as:
“a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances. The misconduct is qualified in two respects. First, it is qualified by the word ‘professional’ which links the conduct to the profession of medicine. Secondly, the misconduct is qualified by the word ‘serious’. It is not any professional misconduct which will qualify. The professional misconduct must be serious …”
77. In the case of Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin), the court stated that:
“The adjective ‘serious’ must be given its proper weight, and in other contexts there has been reference to conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners”.
78. The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of the following standards of HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):
• Standard 1.7: You must keep your relationships with …. carers professional.
• Standard 2.7: You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly …..
• Standard 7.2: You must support and encourage others to report concerns and not prevent anyone from raising concerns.
• Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
79. The Registrant’s sexual and sexually motivated comments and conduct towards Colleague A, and in particular his sexual assault upon her, constituted serious breaches of professional boundaries, which could properly be described as “deplorable” by the standards of fellow professionals and ordinary, decent members of the public. This was compounded by his attempts to prevent Colleague A from reporting him by threatening to get her dismissed from her job if she did so.
80. The Panel found each of the proven Particulars to constitute misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.

Decision on impairment
81. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Bernard-Stevenson.
82. The Panel received no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant but noted his personal statement prepared for the employer’s disciplinary hearing.
83. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
84. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Panel took into account both the personal and public components of impairment.
85. The personal component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, including any evidence of remorse, insight and remediation. The Panel was particularly concerned with the risk of repetition.
86. The public component includes the need to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour on the part of registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.
87. With regard to the personal component of impairment, the Panel noted that the Registrant had denied any wrongdoing. He characterised his sexualised remarks to Colleague A as harmless banter, denied sexually assaulting her and suggested that she had fabricated her complaints in order to cover up her own shortcomings at work and to obtain a permanent job with InHealth. He also suggested that Colleague B had colluded with Colleague A.
88. The Registrant had shown no remorse, offered no apology and shown no insight or understanding of the distress and harm which his conduct had caused to Colleague A, the potentially toxic effect of such conduct on the working environment or the negative impact on his own professional reputation or that of his profession.
89. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s conduct towards Colleague A was indicative of deep-seated sexist attitudes towards women. There was no evidence that he had recognised that there was anything wrong in his behaviour. The Panel noted that he had ignored Colleague B’s repeated warnings to desist from upsetting Colleague A by his behaviour.
90. Whilst the Registrant’s misconduct was potentially remediable, he had provided no evidence that he had undertaken any training in relation to professional boundaries or changed his attitudes or behaviour in response to the complaints made against him. Unless and until he could demonstrate that he had done so, there was a likelihood that he would repeat his misconduct with the potential for significant harm to female colleagues. Accordingly, the Panel found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired having regard to the personal component.
91. The Panel also found the public component of impairment to be satisfied in this case. A member of the public, knowing of the Registrant’s sexually motivated misconduct towards Colleague A and his failure to acknowledge any responsibility, would undoubtedly expect some restriction to be placed on his registration. Public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.

Decision on sanction
92. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Bernard-Stevenson. The Panel received no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant.
93. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
94. 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.
95. The aggravating factors in this case are that:
• The proven facts involve serious breaches of professional boundaries and an abuse by the Registrant of his relatively senior position in relation to Colleague A to subject her to unwanted sexualised comments and conduct, including a sexual assault.
• There was a pattern of sexual and sexually motivated behaviour by the Registrant towards Colleague A, escalating over a period of several days.
• The Registrant sought to use his senior position to intimidate Colleague A by telling her that no-one would believe her, and by threatening that he would have her lose her job, if she reported him.
• He persisted with his conduct towards Colleague A despite being warned repeatedly by Colleague B that he should stop because it was causing her distress.
• His conduct had the potential to create a toxic work environment causing his colleagues to be distracted from their responsibilities to the detriment of patients.
• The Registrant’s sexual assault on Colleague A caused her physical bruising, emotional distress and long-term psychological harm.
• The Registrant maintained, despite being presented with evidence to the contrary, that his conduct amounted to harmless banter.
• He has not provided any apology or shown any remorse, reflection, insight or remediation. He has demonstrated no perception of the effect of his conduct on Colleague A or its negative impact on the workplace, his reputation or the reputation of the profession.
• His response to the complaints about his conduct was to allege fabrication by Colleague A for personal advantage and collusion with Colleague B.
96. The Panel could find no mitigating features.
97. The Panel considered that the case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.
98. The Panel considered that a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s sexual misconduct, his lack of insight and remediation nor be effective to address the risk of repetition and the potential for harm to female colleagues.
99. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate because the Panel could not formulate any conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s persistent sexual misconduct, which was attitudinal in nature. The Registrant has disengaged from these proceedings and would in any case be unlikely to comply with any conditions. In the absence of any evidence that the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns, conditions of practice would be unworkable.
100. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order but decided that suspension was not sufficient given the following factors:
• His conduct towards Colleague A was attitudinal and sexually motivated.
• He continued to breach professional boundaries, despite repeated warnings from his colleagues.
• He abused the imbalance of power as a Radiographer in relation to Colleague A, as a Healthcare Assistant, to bully, humiliate and intimidate her.
• He further used his senior position to threaten Colleague A with the loss of her job should she report his misconduct.
• He has shown no remorse, insight or disposition to change his behaviour in the future.
101. The Sanctions Policy provides the following guidance in relation to Striking Off Orders:
“A Striking Off Order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• Lacks insight
• Continues to repeat the misconduct
• Is unwilling to resolve matters
102. In the Panel’s judgement the Registrant’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with his remaining on the register and all the indicative criteria for a Striking Off Order are present in this case.
103. The Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order is the necessary and proportionate sanction.
Order: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mr Rodrigo J Cabral Rodrigues from the register.

Order: The Registrar is directed to remove the name of Mr Rodrigo J Cabral Rodrigues from the register.

Interim Order
1. Ms Bernard-Stevenson on behalf of the HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined.
2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
3. Given the Panel’s findings that the Registrant’s actions are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent with the need for public protection and the wider public interest not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, concluded that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.
4. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.
5. 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 Rodrigo J Cabral Rodrigues