​​Joshua Chakkumkulamparambil​

Documentation before the Panel
The Panel had the following documentation before it:
HCPC Proceeding Absence Bundle of 47 pages;
Service Bundle of 15 pages;
HCPC Case Summary Bundle of 4 pages;
HCPC hearing Bundle of 47 pages.

Preliminary Matters
Application by the HCPC to amend the Allegation

1.    Ms Buckell, on behalf of the HCPC, made an application to amend the allegation for the purposes of clarity and to reflect the Certificate of Conviction. She submitted that the proposed amendments do not change the nature of the case against the Registrant and does not cause any prejudice to him.

2.    The Registrant was put on notice of the application to amend on 5 May 2026. No objections from the Registrant to the proposed amendments to the allegation have been received.

3.    The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that the HCPC rules are silent on amendments, but it is within its jurisdiction to consider an application for amendment of the Allegation. The Panel considered whether any unfairness or prejudice would arise should it permit the amendment. The Panel carefully considered the submission in relation to the proposed amendment, the evidence it had received and the documents contained within the hearing bundle. 

4.    The Panel considered that the proposed amendment better reflected the criminal conviction and there was no unfairness or prejudice caused to the Registrant. The nature of the case against the Registrant has not materially changed.

5.    The Panel balanced public protection against fairness to the Registrant and was satisfied that the proposed amendment which was minor did not increase the seriousness of the case against him and can be dealt with appropriately.

6.    Accordingly, the application to amend is granted.

Service

7.    On 19 August 2026 the Registrant was served with a Notice of Hearing to his registered email address. This Notice of Hearing notified the Registrant that the hearing would take place remotely on 14 October 2026.  The Notice of Hearing asked the Registrant to confirm by 25 August 2026 if he would be attending and if he would be represented. The Registrant has not requested a hearing. The Registrant has provided no written submissions. The Service Bundle includes a notification of delivery to the Registrant’s registered email address from Microsoft Outlook dated 19 August 2026. On 12 October 2026 the Registrant was sent the link to the hearing.

8.    Rule 3(1)(b) of the Heath Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules 2003 permits the sending of a notice by electronic mail to an electronic mail address which the Registrant has notified to the Council as an address for communications. 

9.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and was referred to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Service of Documents’ which requires proof of sending rather than proof of receipt to effect good service. It is the responsibility of the Registrant to keep their contact details with the HCPC up to date. 

10.    The Panel was satisfied that the requirements in relation to service had been satisfied. 

Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant  

11.    Ms Buckell submitted that the matter be considered on the papers in the Registrant’s absence. She referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant’ and the authorities of R v Hayward, R v Jones, and GMC v Adeogba, which established the factors relevant to determining whether a hearing can fairly proceed when a Registrant does not attend. 

12.    Ms Buckell submitted that the Panel should consider the steps taken by the HCPC to notify the Registrant of the hearing and any efforts made to ascertain the registrant’s current address and maintain communication.  

13.    Ms Buckell submitted that there is a significant public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time, particularly because the case follows criminal proceedings. Adjournments should only be granted where there is a compelling reason to do so and no such reason exists in this case. The public interest in the timely disposal of regulatory proceedings is said to outweigh any basis for postponement.  

14.    In relation to the Registrant’s absence, Ms Buckell submitted that the HCPC has made repeated efforts to engage with him and notify him through various means. The only response received from the Registrant was a request for passwords to access documentation, most recently on 11 September 2026. Ms Buckell submitted that this request demonstrates that the Registrant had received and read the communications about the hearing. Despite this engagement, no substantive response was provided and no indication was given that the Registrant intended to attend. 

15.    Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant has voluntarily chosen not to participate and has effectively waived the right to attend.  An adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at any future hearing, as all reasonable efforts to engage him have already been exhausted. The Registrant would suffer limited disadvantage from his absence because the matter is a conviction case, where the underlying criminal proceedings and conviction are already established. 

16.    Ms Buckell invited the Panel to consider that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself and that the public interest strongly favours proceeding with the hearing in his absence.

17.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS’s Practice Note ‘Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant.’ The Practice Note highlights that the Panel must first consider whether notice of the proceedings has been served on the Registrant in accordance with the Panel Rules. If the Panel is satisfied on the issue of notice, it must then decide whether to proceed in a Registrant’s absence, having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware and balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public. 

18.    The Panel in deciding whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant was aware that the discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the utmost care and caution. 

19.    The governing principle in deciding whether or not to proceed in the absence of a Registrant is fairness to both parties. The Panel when considering whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant, bore in mind the factors set out in the case of R v Jones [2003] AC 1, HL. These include: 

i.    the nature and circumstances of the Registrant’s behaviour in absenting themselves from the hearing;

ii.    whether an adjournment would resolve the Registrant’s absence;

iii.    the likely length of any such adjournment;

iv.    whether the Registrant has voluntarily absented themselves from the proceedings; and

v.    the disadvantage to the Registrant in not being able to present their case.

20.    The Panel bore in mind that it must strike a balance between fairness to the Registrant and fairness to the wider public interest, ensuring that there is adequate focus on public protection. 

21.    The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was aware of today’s hearing and had voluntarily not attended. 

22.    The Panel was satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is fair and in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the Registrant.

Background

23.    On 5 March 2025, the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC due to being charged with drinking and driving. The Certificate of Conviction confirms that the Registrant pleaded guilty to the offence. The MG5 states that at 0500 on 1 March 2025 police were called to attend a single vehicle road traffic collision whereby a back VW Tiguan had collided with a house. The VW had travelled and failed to stop at the give way lines at the junction. Instead, the car carried on straight destroying the garden fence and then hitting the wall creating a large hole in the living room wall. The occupier of the home was sat in his living room at the time of the collision. The car attempted to leave the scene, whilst doing so the occupier of the house tried to stop him. Whilst turning around the car has further damaged the garden and trees and has also collided with a Citroen C5 which was parked. The damage caused to the Citroen was minor scratches to the front nearside. The Registrant’s car became stuck, and he was unable to leave the scene.  

24.    When officers arrived on scene, they witnessed the Registrant standing outside of the car and there was another male present who was a passenger in the car. The Registrant admitted to the officer that he was the driver of the car at the time of the collision. A roadside breath test was conducted with a reading of 106µgs. Evidential breath tests were registered with a reading of 101µgs and a second sample of 103µgs.  

25.    Photographs of the incident are at pages 35 – 47 of the bundle.   

Decision on Facts 

26.    Ms Buckell submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of the criminal conviction. A certificate of conviction is admissible as proof of both the conviction and the facts upon which it was based. The Panel should not go behind the conviction or seek to retry the criminal proceedings. She submitted that the statutory ground of conviction under the Health Professions Order 2001 is established by the certificate of conviction. 

27.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

28.    The Panel was satisfied that the certificate of conviction was sufficient to find the facts in paragraph 1 proved. 

Decision on Grounds

29.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

30.    Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Order provides that one of the statutory grounds of impairment is:

(iii) a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committee in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence

31.    The Panel was satisfied on the basis of the certificate of conviction that the Registrant was convicted at Norwich Magistrates’ Court of an offence, namely that on 1 March 2025 the Registrant drove a motor vehicle on a road after consuming so much alcohol that the proportions of his breath exceeded the prescribed limit.

32.    The Panel found that the statutory ground in Article 22(1)(a(iii) of the Order is made out. 

Decision on Impairment

33.    Ms Buckell submitted the following:

i.    This is a forward-looking assessment and that the relevant question is whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired at the date of the hearing. The principles in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and the questions identified by Dame Janet Smith and endorsed in CHRE v NMC and Grant (2011) EWHC 927 are relevant. Three of the relevant questions can be answered affirmatively: that the Registrant has in the past, and may in the future, put others at risk of harm; that he has brought, and may continue to bring, the profession into disrepute; and that he has breached a fundamental tenet of the profession. 

ii.    The conviction arose from driving whilst over the legal alcohol limit, creating a risk of harm to other road users, a passenger, and the occupant of a house struck by the vehicle. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession, particularly given the allegation that the Registrant attempted to leave the scene after the collision. The conduct is also said to amount to a breach of HCPC Standard 9.1, which requires Registrants to justify the public’s trust and confidence in both themselves and their profession.

iii.    In relation to the personal component, the Panel is invited to consider whether the misconduct is remediable, whether any remedial action has been taken, and whether the conduct is likely to be repeated. The Registrant has not provided evidence demonstrating insight into the incident and therefore has not satisfied the Panel that the risk of repetition has been adequately addressed. 

iv.    In relation to the public component, the need to protect service users, maintain public confidence in the profession, and uphold proper professional standards is emphasised. 

v.    The public is entitled to expect Registrants to act with integrity and that confidence in both the profession and the regulatory process would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. 

vi.    The Panel is invited to find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in relation to both the personal component and the public component. 

34.    The Panel had regard to the HCPTS’ Practice Note ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that consideration of whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired is a matter of its own judgment and does not involve a burden or standard of proof.

35.    The Panel considered whether as a result of the criminal conviction the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Radiographer is currently impaired.

36.    The Panel noted that the Registrant had been convicted of driving whilst significantly over the legal alcohol limit and that his conduct created a serious risk of harm to members of the public. The circumstances were particularly concerning because the vehicle struck a residential property while occupied, and it was considered fortuitous that no person was injured. The Panel regarded the risk posed by the Registrant's actions as substantial and concluded that his behaviour was liable to place others at an unwarranted risk of harm. 

37.    The Panel accepted that concerns arising from the conviction were potentially capable of remediation. However, there was no evidence that the Registrant had taken any meaningful steps to address the underlying issues, reflect upon his conduct, demonstrate insight, or reduce any risk of repetition. Apart from initially self-referring the matter to the HCPC and later notifying the HCPC of the conviction, the Registrant had not engaged with the regulatory process. There was no reflective statement, expression of remorse, evidence of learning, or information regarding any alcohol-awareness course or rehabilitation work undertaken by the Registrant. As a result, the Panel was unable to assess the extent of insight or remediation and could not conclude that the risk of repetition was low. 

38.    The Panel was of the view that the conduct represented a significant departure from the standards expected of a Radiographer. The Registrant's criminal conviction, the serious risk posed to the public, and his subsequent failure to engage with the HCPC all undermined confidence in his professionalism. The absence of any evidence that he recognised the seriousness of his actions or had taken responsibility for them was of particular concern.  

39.    In relation to the personal component, the Panel determined that there remained an ongoing risk because there was no evidence of insight, remediation, or assurance that the conduct would not be repeated. Given the lack of information from the Registrant, the Panel could not properly assess the risk and therefore concluded that there was an ongoing risk. 

40.    In relation to the public component, the Panel concluded that a finding of impairment was necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. Members of the public would reasonably expect regulatory action where a registered professional had committed a serious alcohol-related driving offence that exposed others to significant danger and had then failed to engage meaningfully with the regulator. A finding of no impairment would undermine public confidence and fail to uphold proper professional standards.  

41.    Accordingly, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant's fitness to practise was currently impaired on both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction

42.    Ms Buckell submitted the following:

i.    The decision on sanction is a matter for its independent professional judgment and that the primary purpose of any sanction is the protection of the public. 

ii.    The Registrant has no previous fitness to practise history but the Panel must consider wider public interest factors, including public safety, maintaining confidence in the profession, and maintaining confidence in the regulatory process

iii.    There are several aggravating features. The conviction created a risk of harm to other road users, a passenger in the vehicle, and the occupant of the property struck by the vehicle. Following the collision, the Registrant attempted to leave the scene, causing further damage to both the vehicle and the surrounding property. 

iv.    The Registrant has not taken meaningful steps to address the underlying causes of the misconduct and has demonstrated no meaningful insight, remediation, or assurance that the behaviour would not be repeated. 

v.    In mitigation the Registrant referred to heavy fog at the junction when the incident occurred and had made a self-referral. 

vi.    The Panel should have regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and consider sanctions in ascending order of seriousness, starting with the least restrictive option and moving upward only where necessary. Any sanction imposed must be proportionate and represent the minimum action required to protect the public and uphold confidence in the profession and regulatory process. 

vii.    In a criminal conviction case, the Panel it should consider the nature of the offence, the stage reached in any sentence, and evidence of rehabilitation. 

viii.    The purpose of sanction is not to punish the registrant again for conduct already dealt with by the criminal courts, but to address any ongoing risk and the wider public interest.  

ix.    In relation to the available sanctions, taking no action is unlikely following a finding of impairment. A caution order is a non-restrictive sanction suitable where the matter is isolated, there is a low risk of repetition, and the Registrant has demonstrated insight and remediation. A Conditions of Practice Order is generally appropriate where concerns can be remedied or managed, the Registrant has insight, workable conditions can be formulated, and the Panel is confident that the Registrant will comply. Conditions of Practice are usually more appropriate for practice-related concerns.  

x.    In relation to suspension or striking off, a suspension order may be appropriate where there is evidence that the Registrant can remedy the concerns and where the issues are unlikely to be repeated, although future review panels must retain their discretion. A striking-off order is the most severe sanction and may be appropriate for persistent, serious, deliberate, or reckless conduct where no lesser sanction would adequately protect the public or maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.  

xi.    It is for the Panel to determine which sanction is appropriate and proportionate on the facts of the case.

43.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that:

•    It should have regard to the sanctions policy and begin by considering whether there are any particular mitigating or aggravating features;

•    The attitude of the Registrant to the allegations is something which can go in their favour or against them at the stage of determining sanction; 

•    Then work through the sanctions starting with the least restrictive;

•    Have regard to the HCPC’s over-arching objective of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding proper professional standards;

•    Impose the minimum sanction necessary to meet the regulator’s overarching objective, bearing in mind that the purpose of sanction is not to punish;

•    Ensure that any sanction is proportionate, whilst bearing in mind that the interests of the profession take precedence; Bolton v Law Society (1994) 1 WLR 512;

•    Bear in mind that personal mitigation or remediation carries little weight at the sanction stage, given that the purpose of sanction is to protect the public and uphold the public interest.

44.    The Panel regarded the misconduct as serious because the Registrant had driven whilst heavily intoxicated, creating a significant risk of harm to both the public and a passenger. Although no serious injury resulted, the Panel considered that the potential consequences could have been extremely grave. The conviction was treated as a single incident and there was no evidence of previous concerns regarding the Registrant's professional practice or character. The Panel therefore considered the case to be of moderate seriousness rather than at the most serious end of the spectrum.

45.    The Panel considered that a significant feature of the case was the Registrant's overall lack of engagement with the regulatory proceedings. The Panel considered it significant that there was an absence of any evidence of insight, reflection, remorse and remediation. The Panel’s view was that these were aggravating factors. 

46.    Whilst recognising that no adverse inference could be drawn simply from the non-attendance of the Registrant, the Panel considered that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate any understanding of the risks created by his conduct or any appreciation of its impact on public confidence in the profession. The absence of any apology or reflective evidence prevented the Panel from concluding to what extent, if any, the Registrant had addressed the concerns.

47.    The Panel considered that the only mitigating factor was that the Registrant reported the events to HCPC expeditiously.

48.    The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order. Taking no action and remediation were rejected as wholly inappropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the continuing public protection concerns. A Caution Order was also considered unsuitable because such an outcome normally requires a low risk of repetition, insight and remediation, none of which could be demonstrated in this case. The Panel concluded that a Caution Order would not adequately address the regulatory concerns or maintain public confidence in the profession. It would be insufficient to meet the regulatory objective, given that the Panel had found that the Registrant’s misconduct had the potential to harm others and that there was a risk of repetition due to underdeveloped insight. In addition, neither of these sanctions were proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. 

49.    The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order was inappropriate. The misconduct concerned attitudinal and behavioural issues occurring outside the workplace rather than deficiencies in clinical competence. It found that workable, measurable and enforceable conditions could not be formulated. Furthermore, the Registrant's lack of engagement meant that the panel could not be satisfied that he would comply with conditions or use them to remediate the concerns identified.  

50.    The Panel concluded that a Suspension Order was the appropriate and proportionate sanction. It was necessary both to protect the public and to uphold confidence in the profession and regulatory process. The Panel was also influenced by the fact that a suspension would provide the Registrant with an opportunity to engage, demonstrate insight and undertake remediation before a future review hearing. A striking-off order was considered disproportionate at this stage, particularly as this was an isolated conviction and there was no evidence of wider professional misconduct.  

51.    The Panel considered a four-month Suspension Order to be appropriate. This period struck a fair balance between marking the seriousness of the conduct and allowing the Registrant a reasonable opportunity to reflect on his actions and engage with the HCPC.

52.    Before he is able to return to practice the Registrant will need to satisfy a review panel that he has remedied his misconduct and that he is fit to return to practice. The Panel considered that a future reviewing panel is likely to be assisted by:

•    Evidence of attendance and engagement with the regulatory process, 

•    the Registrants own reflections demonstrating insight into the incident and its impact on public confidence, and, 

•    evidence of any remediation undertaken, including work completed through recognised reflective frameworks or alcohol-awareness programmes, public perception of the Radiography profession;

•    Evidence of CPD with a focus on professionalism, and also to maintain clinical skills during the period of absence from practice.

Order: That the Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Joshua Chakkumkulamparambil for a period of 4 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s
decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be
made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s
order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal,
until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

Interim Order Application
1.    In light of its findings, the Panel next considered an application by Ms Buckell for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period before the final order becomes effective.

2.    Ms Buckell submitted that an interim order should be made to cover the appeal period in light of the Panel’s finding that a Suspension Order is necessary to protect the public and in the public interest. She submitted that an interim order is necessary on both these grounds. She asked for an interim order for 18 months to cover the time taken to deal with any appeal. She submitted that it was appropriate to make an interim order in the absence of the Registrant taking into account that the HCPC in the email dated 19 August 2026 stated:

“Please note that if the Panel finds that it is necessary to do so, it may impose an interim order (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001) at any stage during the hearing. An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.”

3.    The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that it could make an interim order if doing so was necessary for protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest or in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should bear in mind its previous findings and consider whether it is necessary to place any restriction on the Registrant’s practice as of today. If so, it should determine the appropriate form and duration of any interim order. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS’ Practice Note ‘Interim Orders.’

4.    The Panel considered whether to impose an interim order. It was mindful of its earlier findings that the Registrant’s misconduct gave rise to potential harm to others, that the Registrant has demonstrated no insight and has failed to engage with the HCPC. The Panel decided that it would be incompatible with its earlier findings if there was no interim order in place.

5.    The Panel was aware that its decision may cause the Registrant hardship, however, this is outweighed by the protection of the public.

6.    Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the public interest. It made the interim order for 18 months, to allow for any appeal. When the appeal period expires this interim order will come to an end unless an appeal has been filed with the High Court. If there is no appeal, the final order shall take effect when the appeal period expires.

History of Hearings for ​​Joshua Chakkumkulamparambil​