Mr Kenneth Okpalanwaka

Preliminary Matters:

Privacy application 

1.    The HCPC representative applied for the hearing to be held partly in private, if necessary, due to a health condition experienced by one of the HCPC witnesses.  The Registrant’s representative did not object.

2.    The Panel heard and accepted legal advice.  It was mindful of the open justice principle but determined that any discrete aspect of the hearing touching upon private health matters should be held in private. 

Amendment of Application 

3.    The HCPC applied to amend the application to change the date at Particular 1 from 1 February 2023 – 27 February 2023 to 1 January 2023 - 27 February 2023.  The reason for this was the Registrant’s job application would not necessarily have been received by Trust A after 1 February 2023, and the HCPC wanted to ensure that it did not fail due to a technicality as to the time scale.  There was a further application to add the word ‘Care’ to Health and Care Profession’s Council, as the initial charge erroneously read ‘Health and Profession’s Council’ rather than ‘Health and Care Profession’s Council.’ 

4.    The Registrant’s representative did not oppose either application.

5.    The Panel accepted legal advice and was mindful that it needed to balance fairness to the Registrant with its overarching duty to protect the public.  It determined that there was no unfairness to the Registrant in respect of either amendment, as the substance of the allegation remained unchanged, and it was important that the name of the Regulator was accurately recorded.  Accordingly, the Panel allowed both amendments to the Allegation. 

Application to admit hearsay evidence 

6.    The HCPC applied to admit a witness statement as hearsay.  This statement was from a former member of staff at the HCPC and simply produced and exhibited the Registrant’s Interim Order of Conditions. 

7.    Having taken instructions from the Registrant, the Registrant’s representative did not object to this application.

8.    The Panel accepted legal advice and had regard to the HCPTS practice note ‘Evidence’ dated October 2024.  It determined that the statement was not the sole and determinative source of evidence against the Registrant.  The Panel noted that the maker of the statement did not have personal knowledge of the matters referred to and was simply exhibiting and producing documentary evidence.  The Panel determined this documentary evidence could be adduced by another member of HCPC staff from the records and considered that the admission of this evidence as hearsay would not unfairly affect the Registrant.  The Panel therefore determined to admit this statement. 

Background:

9.    The Registrant is a Radiographer registered with the HCPC. 

10.    On 2 March 2023, the HCPC fitness to practise team received an email from CH, a Services Manager at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, which was then part of Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust (Trust A). This indicated that the Registrant had applied for a role as a Radiographer, but had not disclosed his interim conditions of practice as part of this application.

11.    The HCPC had previously made an application for an interim order to a panel of the Investigating Committee on 22 November 2022, in respect of an unrelated matter. The Registrant was present at that hearing.  At that hearing, the Investigating Committee imposed an Interim Conditions of Practice Order for a period of 18 months. The conditions included a requirement as follows: 

8  “You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to these conditions… 

c)    any prospective employer in respect of an employment that requires registration with the HCPC.” 

12.    As a result of the enquiry received by CH, the HCPC investigated this matter.  On 5 September 2024, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer.  This substantive hearing was subsequently arranged. 
The HCPC Case.

13.    The HCPC representative set out that the Registrant had failed to comply with the Interim Conditions of Practice Order (IOC) that had been imposed on 28 November 2022.  It was submitted that the Registrant had not disclosed the conditions of practise to a prospective employer when he submitted his application to Trust A, as he had been obliged to do. The HCPC case was that the Registrant was aware of these conditions and had concealed them with the intention of obtaining employment. 

14.    CH attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.  She explained that when a job application is made, she would not know specifically the date that it has been made due to the process and systems for NHS Jobs.  However, CH was able to say that she holds a post open for two weeks.  She stated that the only way an application would be closed earlier than two weeks was if there was likely to be a high volume of applications for a job, which was not the case for the post the Registrant had applied for. CH produced documentary evidence, including the Registrant’s application form and an email thread, including an email inviting him for an interview on 27 February 2023. The Registrant had not been able to attend on that date and had offered an alternative date on which the interviewing panel was not available. 

15.    CH explained that all job applicants are anonymised until shortlisted for interview.  Her process is to check the HCPC register at the stage at which shortlisting occurs, to avoid wasting time.  This was the stage at which she noticed the Registrant’s conditions of practise. As the advertised role would require any successful applicant to work independently and unsupervised, CH took advice from ‘HR’ (Human Resources) before rescinding the offer of an interview to the Registrant. She confirmed that this occurred at around the same time that she had contacted the HCPC about the matter.

16.    RM is an employee of the HCPC in Operations Management.  She also gave evidence under affirmation, and exhibited the statement of AU which in turn exhibited the Registrant’s previous conditions of practise.  RM confirmed that she had known AU as a colleague within her department, as he had worked within her team.  Both RM and AU had no personal knowledge of the case and were simply producing the interim conditions of practise from HCPC records.  

Submission of no case to answer

17.    The Registrant’s representative submitted that the HCPC had not factually presented cogent concrete evidence in support of the allegation. He submitted that the evidence was inherently very weak so as even taken at its highest the Panel could not find the facts proved.   It appeared that the submission related to the wording of the condition and what was meant by ‘prospective employer.’ 

18.    The HCPC representative submitted that the Panel should have regard to the relevant practise note.  There was clear evidence focusing on the relevant allegations and a documentary basis for this. It was submitted that condition 8 c) of the Interim Conditions of Practise Order places a clear positive obligation on the Registrant to disclose the existence of the Order itself, and there was cogent evidence that he had not done so before the Panel. There was therefore a case to answer.

19.    Further, it was submitted that an assessment of dishonesty requires an assessment of the surrounding evidence.  Although the Registrant may have an explanation, it was a legitimate inference that the decision not to disclose was a purposeful decision. There was therefore sufficient evidence of a case to answer for both Particulars.  If the HCPC case against the Registrant was found proved, dishonesty was clearly a matter that could amount to misconduct.

20.    The Panel heard and accepted legal advice, including references to R v Galbraith 1 WLR (1981), 1039 and regulatory case law.  It noticed that it was not able to take into account any defence at this stage. It determined that, taking the documentary and oral evidence at its highest, there was a case for the Registrant to answer.  The Panel further determined that this was not the type of case that would not amount to misconduct if found proved, given the allegations of dishonesty.  The Panel therefore determined to proceed with the case. 

The Registrant’s case

21.    The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation, assisted by his lay representative. He answered questions under cross-examination from the HCPC representative and answered Panel questions. The Registrant confirmed that his mother tongue is Igbo, but that he was taught in English to post-graduate level in Nigeria.  He said that he qualified as a radiographer 12 years before the application to the Trust was made. The Registrant gave evidence that he had submitted several applications for employment and always disclosed the IOC when the question was asked on the application form.  For the application to the Trust, he did not disclose it as the form did not ask the question.

22.    It was explained by the Registrant that the IOC did not specify when he should make the disclosure.  He explained that his mode of operation when searching for a job was to disclose it on the form if asked, or at interview, or both. He explained that this disclosure happened a minimum of ten times.  The Registrant said it was not possible to hide the information, as the IOC was in the public domain, and he was aware that NHS employers would all check the HCPC website and see it.  He disputed that he had hidden the IOC in a dishonest way and said that he took full responsibility for his error of judgement.  Under cross-examination, the Registrant continued to dispute that his behaviour had been dishonest.  He confirmed he knew about the IOC but said it did not specify when the disclosure should be made to a prospective employer.  

23.    The Registrant was not able to recall exactly when his application to the Trust was made but did not dispute that he was subject to the IOC at that time, although the IOC was later revoked at the first review.  The Registrant indicated that he had been poorly represented at the IOC hearing.  He said that he did not deliberately hide the IOC from the Trust, that he had not deliberately refused to disclose the IOC and that he sincerely apologised if this led to a misunderstanding. He acknowledged completing the ‘supporting information’ part of the application to the Trust and denied that he was hoping the Trust would not check.

24.    The Registrant was not able to respond immediately to a question from the Panel about the other job applications he had made, or the timing of these, explaining that he would need time to locate that information.  He was released from oath for a brief period to discuss with his lay advisor as to whether he wished to use documentation previously submitted to the HCPC (at the investigation stage) as an aide memoire.  The HCPC representative agreed to this course of action and assisted by sharing his screen of the relevant documentation.  This confirmed other Trusts that the Registrant indicated he had applied to for roles, disclosing the IOC on the paperwork and still being called for interview, or disclosing it at interview. The Registrant did not provide further detail as to the dates or times of these applications. 

HCPC application

25.    The HCPC representative applied to adjourn the proceedings to adduce further evidence.  This included documentary evidence and witness evidence from the HCPC as to the Registrant’s evidence on oath regarding his first language. The Registrant’s representative objected to the adjournment, indicating that he was concerned by it, and that it was a ‘red herring.’

26.    The Panel heard and accepted legal advice.  It determined not to allow the HCPC time to produce additional evidence at this stage of proceedings.  The Panel considered that the additional evidence was not fundamental to the case before it or the decisions that it was required to take.  It therefore refused the HCPC application for an adjournment.

Closing Submissions on behalf of the HCPC

27.    The HCPC representative submitted that the HCPC had the burden of proof in respect of proving each Particular. It was submitted that the documentary evidence demonstrated the fact of the Registrant’s application, and that the oral evidence of CH made clear that it was more likely than not that the application was received within the time period set out in the Particular. It was stated that the Registrant had not disputed that the role applied for required HCPC registration.

28.    It was submitted that the Registrant had not complied with the IOC in making Trust A aware of it. Trust A became a prospective employer at the time the Registrant made the application, and the IOC placed a clear and positive obligation on the Registrant.  It was submitted that whether the Registrant was intending to make the disclosure later was not relevant at this stage of the proceedings.  

29.    The HCPC representative submitted that evidence given in the context of being accused of being dishonest is such that the Panel should be conscious of its self-serving potential. There was no suggestion that the Registrant did not understand the IOC, and he had accepted that Registrant’s are expected to act in a way that is open, honest and trustworthy.  It was submitted that it was unclear how the Registrant thought poor representation had resulted in a purposeful decision to hold back information from a prospective employer.  The relevant information as to conditions should have been disclosed at an early stage in the process.  It was submitted that the Registrant was aware of the IOC and the positive duty to disclose, and the Panel were invited to find his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary or decent people.

Registrant’s closing submissions

30.    The Registrant’s representative submitted that the Registrant had not acted dishonestly and had made an error or judgement.  The Registrant believed he was complying and looked into the wording of the conditions. It was submitted that the Registrant had applied to several other organisations, and the HCPC would have been bombarded with referrals if he had failed to disclose the IOC to these organisations either at interview or during the application process. The Registrant’s oral evidence that he had been invited to interview even when he had disclosed the IOC on an application was highlighted. 

31.    It was submitted that the Registrant knew NHS hospitals definitely checked information, and a dishonest person would not hide something where it would have been seen immediately. It was submitted that the Registrant did not have in mind to deceive or hide the information.  Further, negligence is not a failure of core honesty.  The Registrant had apologised and acknowledged that the HCPC as a body did a good thing in protecting the public.  

32.    The representative suggested that CH may have forgotten the date that she received the form as she has forgotten it was a diagnostic radiographer role that was advertised.  The Registrant’s state of mind was that he would disclose the conditions whenever asked or at interview, and that there was no evidence to contradict what he had said.

Legal Advice

33.    The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty.  The Panel was reminded that it should assess the weight of any hearsay evidence admitted. Advice was provided as to the burden of proof, including that any doubt should be resolved in the Registrant’s favour.  The Panel were taken to helpful case law to assist them with assessing evidence. The test for dishonesty as set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (2018) 2 All ER 406 was explained, along with additional case law. The Panel was directed to the HCPTS Practice note ‘Making decisions on a Registrant’s state of mind’ dated August 2025.  A good character direction was provided. 

Decision on Facts:

34.    The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s good character and accepted the legal advice received.  It carefully considered each Particular in turn.

35.    The Panel noted that the date the IOC was made was not contested by the Registrant.  It accepted the clear documentary evidence of the existence of the IOC, the date it was made and the date it was later revoked. The Panel also noted that the Registrant accepted his application to Trust A as adduced by the HCPC was correct.  There was nothing additional provided as to disclosures to Trust A other than the HCPC evidence. The Panel accepted CH’s evidence as to the timing the application was received on the balance of probabilities.  

36.    Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant did not disclose to Trust A either the IOC or the conditions that he was subject to. It was the view of the Panel that Trust A became a prospective employer at the time the Registrant’s application for employment was made. The Panel had clear documentary evidence that the Registrant had not disclosed the IOC or it’s conditions within the time parameters as set out in Particular 1. The Panel therefore determined that Particular 1 a) and b) were both proved. 

37.    The Panel then moved on to consider Particular 2.  It bore in mind the test as set out in the case in ‘Ivey’ and considered each limb in turn.  

38.    The Panel acknowledge that the documentary evidence made clear that there was not a box on the application form that the Registrant sent to the Trust asking about fitness to practise history or conditions of practise. However, it determined that the IOC clearly placed a positive obligation upon the Registrant to disclose his conditions of practise to all potential employers when applying for roles for which HCPC registration was required.  

39.    It was the Registrant’s evidence that he understood the IOC, and he had also accepted during his evidence that the Trust was a potential employer.  The Panel noted the evidence that the Registrant was making multiple job applications and was aware of both the IOC and the obligation upon him to disclose it.  It also noted that there were emails sent by the Registrant to Trust A during the time scale referred to in Particular 1. Further, the documentary evidence was clear that the Registrant had not referred at any point to the IOC within these emails, once his application had been made.

40.    The Panel found that the Registrant would have had the IOC at the forefront of his mind because he was making multiple job applications, and due to the strict requirements of the IOC which would have had an impact on the ability of any prospective employer to employ him.  It considered that as a registered healthcare professional, he understood the duty to be trustworthy, honest and transparent.  What was in the Registrant’s mind was therefore that he knew he had a positive duty to disclose and was fully aware of the IOC. The Panel noted that the Registrant had inserted a significant amount of positive information into the supplementary box on the application Form to Trust A.  It was not simply the case that he had only filled in basic information and ticked boxes on the form.  The Panel determined that in these circumstances, the Registrant had made a positive decision not to disclose the IOC within that supplementary box, knowing that to do so would harm his employment prospects.

41.    The Panel then moved on to consider limb 2 of Ivey.  It found that ordinary decent people would consider the conduct of the Registrant in failing to proactively put forward information about the IOC in accordance with it’s conditions to be dishonest, in circumstances in which he had a positive obligation to do so. 

42.    It was the determination of the Panel that Particular 2 a) was found proved on the basis that the Registrant had deliberately concealed information that he knew he had a positive duty to disclose to Trust A, as he had not disclosed this on the application form or in his email correspondence.  

43.    Further, the Panel determined that Particular 2 b) was made out on the basis that the Registrant had presented incomplete information to Trust A with a view to obtaining employment, as the purpose of his job application was clearly to obtain employment with Trust A. 

Decision on Grounds:

Submissions on behalf of HCPC

44.    It was submitted that it was for the Panel to decide if the proven facts amount to the statutory ground of misconduct.  An important aspect was the harm or risk of harm that might result from the proven facts.  The Representative directed the Panel to the relevant section of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (in effect from January 2016 until August 2024) (the Standards), which it was suggested that the Registrant had breached.

45.    It was submitted that a fundamental aspect of an interim order is protecting both the public and the wider public interest.  If a condition was not complied with, the risk is that the condition which an independent panel had considered necessary was at risk of not being achieved. Further, it was submitted that these issues were enhanced when there were findings of dishonesty.  It was submitted that dishonest non-compliance with an IOC was a serious matter. 

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant

46.    It was acknowledged that the Panel had found the facts proven but submitted that the Panel had not identified deep-seated behaviour.  It was stated that this was an isolated incident, even though the Panel may be considering the impact on the reputation of the profession.

47.    The Registrant’s representative submitted that the incident on its own should not be regarded as reaching the threshold for misconduct on its own, in all the circumstances.  The Panel were invited to determine the threshold for misconduct had not been reached.

Panel Decision

48.    The Panel heard and accepted legal advice.  It was mindful that misconduct is a matter for its own professional judgement, there being no burden or standard of proof.

49.    It was the finding of the Panel that dishonesty is a serious failing. The IOC was imposed on the Registrant to protect the public and protect public confidence in the profession. The failure to disclose this to Trust A therefore undermined the role of the Regulator.

50.    The Panel’s findings of fact were that there was an element of concealment of the IOC and the specific conditions of practise for the Registrant’s personal gain.  It considered that the Registrant’s failure to disclose the IOC was likely to be attitudinal, as it was a deliberate act.

51.    It was accepted by the Panel that this was an isolated incident and related to a failure to provide information rather than providing false information.  Nevertheless, there was a clear breach of the Standards demonstrating a lack of integrity and a failure to comply with the regulatory process.  The Panel found that the conduct found proved clearly crossed the threshold into serious professional misconduct.

Decision on Impairment:

Submissions on behalf of HCPC

52.    The HCPC representative endorsed the relevant HCPTS practice note and reminded the Panel they were considering fitness to practice today. It was submitted that the Panel decision did not appear to fall into the rejected defence case as envisaged by the case of Sawati.  

53.    The general principles of fitness to practise impairment were set out, and the HCPC representative addressed both the personal and public components. It was submitted that serious attitudinal behavioural issues are more difficult to remediate. Further, dishonesty circumventing public protection engaged the public component. There is a fundamental public trust issue raised if a purposeful breach of an interim order is not robustly addressed.

Submissions on behalf of Registrant

54.    The Registrant’s representative submitted that the Registrant is a family man. The Registrant understood the error that he had made and that the Panel had found proven. The Registrant understood what he had gone through, the impact on his profession and his career. It was submitted that the Registrant had openly expressed remorse and promised such a thing would never happen again.  

55.    It was submitted that the Registrant had not been able to practice his profession for four years, so the public would conclude that four years of punishment was enough. The Registrant’s representative submitted that this was an isolated incident that happened once, and attitudinal issues should not be defined by a single incident. The representative submitted that the Registrant’s attitude towards honesty and integrity can only be measured by looking at the totality of his behaviours across many situations. 

56.    The Registrant’s representative submitted that the Registrant had learnt through his experience of the regulatory process and there was no risk of repetition. He invited the Panel to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired, and that the Registrant was ready to go back to the profession.

Panel Decision

57.    The Panel heard and accepted legal advice. As well as the submissions, it had regard to the documents submitted by the Registrant, which consisted of a reference from Nigeria dated 22 November 2022 (so prior to the time of the facts found proved), a two-page handwritten letter from the Registrant completed on day four of the hearing and a number of recent clinical CPD certificates. The Panel considered the HCPTS practice note ‘Fitness to Practice Impairment’ dated August 2025. It was mindful that it was considering the Registrant’s current fitness to practise, and that its role was not to punish him for past misconduct. 

58.    The Panel accepted that this was an isolated incident. It determined there was no direct harm caused to patients or colleagues, and no clinical concerns. However, the Panel considered that there was a risk of harm occurring had the Registrant started work without complying with the IOC, which was there to protect the public. His omission to disclose this therefore had the potential to put the wider public at risk.

59.    The Panel noted that the Registrant had apologised and expressed remorse for his behaviour. It accepted that there was not a pattern of dishonesty or a pattern of attitudinal issues. It was the view of the Panel that dishonesty is attitudinal, and on this occasion, it involved a deliberate omission. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s insight was not fully developed, as he had failed to fully consider and understand his responsibility to disclose the conditions and the impact his omission could have had on the public or the wider profession.  

60.    It was the conclusion of the Panel that the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession, as he had acted dishonestly. The Panel had no doubt that the Registrant had learnt a lesson, but it appeared that he viewed the ongoing proceedings as a punishment, rather than fully appreciating the seriousness of his omission to disclose an IOC to a potential employer, in breach of conditions imposed by his Regulator. 

61.    It was the finding of the Panel that although the Registrant’s actions are remediable, he had not yet taken full responsibility for his conduct or shown fully developed insight. This meant that the risk of repetition remained. The Panel therefore concluded that the personal component was engaged, and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on this component.

62.    The Panel also considered the test as set out in CHRE v NMC (and Grant) (2011) EWHC 927 (Admin). It considered that an ordinary member of the public would expect the Regulator to act in a case in which a Registrant had dishonestly breached conditions imposed by that Regulator. It found that public confidence in both the profession and the Regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. Accordingly, the Panel determined that the public component was also engaged and necessitated a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. 

No information currently available

This hearing adjourned, part heard. The hearing will reconvene on 01 October 2026. 

History of Hearings for Mr Kenneth Okpalanwaka