Bijoy Bridewin Thomas

Preliminary Matters:

Privacy application

1.    Ms Khaile applied to the Panel for the hearing to be held partially in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant. She confirmed there was a possibility for there to be references to the Registrant’s health during the proceedings and that any such references should be heard in private in order to protect his private life.

2.    The Registrant confirmed that he supported the application.

3.    The Legal Assessor advised that, as a general rule, hearings are to be held in public in accordance with the common law principle of ‘open justice’. However, in certain circumstances, if the Panel is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of an individual, then the Panel has a discretion to conduct the hearing wholly or partly in private.

4.    The Panel considered the application and advice received.  The Panel determined that, in order to protect the private life of the Registrant, it was appropriate that any reference to his health or family life during the hearing are to be heard partly in private.  

Application to amend the allegation

5.    Ms Khaile applied to amend the wording of Particular 6 to add the words “but you failed to do so” at the end.

6.    Ms Khaile submitted that the amendment was identified following a review of the particulars prior to the final hearing and that the amendment was required to properly reflect the charge as per the HCPC case.  She submitted that the amendment does not change the substance of the alleged conduct, instead it serves to clarify the dishonest behaviour in clear terms that the Registrant and the Panel can properly understand. 

7.    Ms Khaile submitted that a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee is permitted to make amendments to an allegation at any point up until findings of facts have been made. The key factor which will determine the exercise of discretion is whether any unfairness or prejudice to the Registrant will arise if the application to amend the allegation is granted. This includes the need to ensure that the Registrant understands the case against him in order to allow him to provide a response to allegation should he wish to do so. 

8.    Ms Khaile submitted that the amendment makes it clear that the Registrant deliberately did not inform the HCPC of his conviction despite knowing that he was required to do so but did not.  She submitted that the amendment better particularises the Particular in a clear manner that covers the totality of the conduct alleged. It was submitted that this is consistent with the approach outlined in Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319, where it was accepted that even late amendments of allegations could be justified after the evidence had been heard, provided any unfairness was considered. 

9.    The Registrant confirmed that he had no objection to the proposed amendment to Particular 6.

10.    The Legal Assessor advised that there is a strong and positive interest in allegations being precisely and accurately drafted. As a matter of fairness to a Registrant, it can help them more readily understand the case they are expected to answer. It also helps others, such as the public, in better understanding the cases brought by a regulator, which supports the overarching wider public interest objectives of the regulator.

11.    The Panel considered the submissions and accepted the advice provided in that an important consideration when potentially amending an allegation is the question of fairness to the Registrant in doing so. 

12.    The Panel noted that the proposed amendment was limited and agreed that it did not make any material difference to the Particular but simply clarified the circumstances. The Panel could not identify any disadvantage or unfairness to the Registrant and that the additional wording had no impact on the disputed matter of dishonesty.

13.    The Panel therefore agreed to the application to amend the allegation in relation to Particular 6 to add the words “but you failed to do so.”

Admissions

14.    The Allegation was put to the Registrant who made admissions to Particulars 1 - 5 inclusive.  The Registrant did not make any admission to Particular 6 and confirmed he would leave this for the consideration of the Panel.

Background:

The Regulatory Concern:

15.    At the time of the Allegation, the Registrant was registered with the HCPC as a physiotherapist. 

16.    On 12 March 2024, the Registrant was convicted at Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court having entered guilty pleas to the following offences committed on 17 February 2024: 

•    Driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath namely 113 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, contrary to section 5(1) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 

•    Driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising you to drive a motor vehicle of that class, contrary to section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 

•    Using a motor vehicle when there was not in force in relation to that use such a policy of insurance, contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 

17.    The Registrant failed to inform the HCPC following being charged with these offences on 17 February 2024 or following the convictions on 12 March 2024.

18.    On 8 April 2024, the Registrant completed his registration renewal to the HCPC and did not select that there had been a change relating to good character.

19.    On 13 April 2024, the Registrant informed the HCPC by email that he had been charged with drink driving on 17 February 2024.  The Registrant apologised for the delay in informing the HCPC but explained that he believed that he only needed to make the HCPC aware of professional practice concerns. 

20.    On an unknown date, the Registrant also provided the HCPC with additional information including a copy of his community order which confirmed that the Registrant had to complete one hundred hours of unpaid work. The Registrant confirmed he is completing his hours. 

21.    The Registrant was also disqualified from driving for 26 months after which he can renew his licence and was ordered to pay a total of £249.00 in costs. 
HCPC case 

22.    Ms Khaile set out the regulatory concerns on behalf of the HCPC, briefly summarised the evidence of the agreed witness Adam Mawson, a Registrations Manager at the HCPC and referred to the police summary of the incident on 17 February 2024 that resulted in the Registrant’s convictions.

23.    Ms Khaile referred to the statement of Adam Mawson dated 27 March 2025 which set out the background to the case and exhibited AM/01 to AM/07 inclusive which had been provided within the bundle of documents for the hearing.  Ms Khaile submitted that Adam Mawson’s evidence confirmed the requirement of HCPC registrants to renew their registration every two years and, when doing so, they were required to answer a number of questions before signing a professional declaration.  His evidence confirmed that one of these questions related to any changes in a registrant’s good character and that this Registrant had ticked the box on 8 April 2024 to confirm there had been no change.  She confirmed that Standard 9.5 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics required registrants to notify the HCPC if they had been cautioned, charged or convicted of any criminal offence and that Adam Mawson’s evidence confirmed that this Registrant had failed to do so.

The Registrant’s case

24.    The Registrant gave evidence on affirmation.

25.    The Registrant stated that, in relation to Particular 6, he denied that he had acted dishonestly. He stated that he had made an honest mistake and had misunderstood his obligations, thinking at the time that the question related to misconduct in a professional capacity only.  He stated that his actions were not deliberate and it was only when he spoke with a more senior colleague soon after and mentioned the convictions, that his colleague informed him of the requirement to inform the HCPC.  He stated that within the hour he used his laptop to email the HCPC to notify them of the convictions.  He stated that until then, he had not realised he had made such a big mistake and that he had not tried to hide the convictions from the HCPC and was not dishonest.

26.    In response to questions from Ms Khaile, the Registrant stated:

•    He understood the allegation within Particular 6 and that he had an obligation to inform the HCPC of his convictions and to notify them of any change to his character;

•    He understood the requirement to renew his registration every 2 years and to meet the relevant Standards for the physiotherapy profession;

•    He misunderstood the requirement to notify the HCPC of any change to his character and thought it related to behaviour with a patient or colleague;

•    He did not email the HCPC team to ask what the word “character” related to;

•    He was aware of Standard 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics document but, at the time he took it lightly and it was only when he spoke to his senior colleague that he realised his mistake;

•    He acknowledged that he had not answered the question in relation to his character correctly but stated this was an honest mistake;

•    He stated that in India, drink driving is not taken as seriously as it is in the UK, although he appreciated the rules are different in the UK;

•    He acknowledged that Standard 9.5 did not confirm what offences it related to but believed at the time that he only needed to report more serious offences, such as fighting with someone, misbehaving or fraud and did not think that drink driving was that serious;

•    He now appreciates that the HCPC takes this very seriously.

•    He denied that he was dishonest when he completed the HCPC renewal form and denied that he was trying to conceal the convictions; and

•    He now appreciates that failing to inform the HCPC of the convictions was not right but stated that it was an honest mistake.

27.    In response to questions from the Panel the Registrant responded as follows:

•    He confirmed he had stated in evidence that he did not take the offence of drink driving very seriously, that he didn’t think it was a criminal offence, that drink driving is not taken seriously in India, although he considered that driving without a licence or insurance is considered a very serious offence in India;

•    He accepted that a person living in a particular country has a responsibility to abide by the laws of that country;

•    He was unable to date the discussion he had with his senior colleague but this triggered his report to the HCPC about his conviction within an hour of the discussion;

•    He acknowledged that he did not mention to the HCPC at the time about the conversation he had with his colleague as he didn’t want to bring his colleague’s name into it;

•    He had not expected the HCPC to take it very seriously and it was only later that he realised how seriously they were taking it;

•    He had no documentation to confirm the conversation with his senior colleague and was no longer in touch with him, so the colleague may not be interested in co-operating in providing confirmation of the conversation;

•    He has been registered with the HCPC since 2023 and only working in a registered role for 3 months prior to the incident occurring;

•    He had been practising in India prior to that from 2007 [Redacted];

•    He may have read the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics prior to the incident, although he could not be sure, and it was only after the incident that he started to read the document in detail;

•    He acknowledged that when registered with the HCPC he had a responsibility to be familiar with the standards of that registered body; and

•    He accepted that he had not informed the HCPC of the charges made against him on 17 February 2024 and that he was going through some traumatic experiences in his life at the time, [Redacted] and there were financial issues in relation to business investments that he had to shut down.  He had also had an incident in relation to a patient prior to the charges on 17 February 2024, which he had found disturbing and described himself as “not in the right mind” when the incident took place on 17 February 2024.

28.    In response to further questions from Ms Khaile, the Registrant responded as follows:

•    He did not recall reading the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, in particular Standard 9.5 prior to 8 April 2024 and may have done so “passively”; and

•    When in the process of renewing his registration he read the Standards again but at the time he was thinking totally differently and it did not “click” in his mind.

Submissions

29.    Ms Khaile submitted briefly that the Particulars can be found proved by way of the Registrant’s admissions and also the evidence of Adam Mawson.  She submitted that, whilst Adam Mawson cannot provide evidence as to the Registrant’s state of mind, he can provide evidence in relation to the requirements and obligations on the Registrant as a registered Physiotherapist.  Ms Khaile referred the Panel to the balance of probability and the caselaw in relation to dishonesty when considering Particular 6.

30.    The Registrant confirmed he had nothing to add to the evidence he had already given.

Decision on Facts:

Panel’s Approach

31.    The Panel was mindful that the burden of proving the facts was on the HCPC. The Registrant did not have to prove anything. The individual Particulars of the Allegation could only be found proved if the Panel was satisfied that the case was proved on the balance of probabilities.

32.    In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the agreed statement and exhibits of Adam Mawson, the documents received in relation to the Registrant’s convictions, the oral evidence provided by the Registrant and the oral submissions made.  

33.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor which is a matter of record. In summary, the advice included, but was not limited to, the burden and standard of proof, witness memory, inferences, demeanour, good character, assessing the state of mind of a registrant and the caselaw relating to dishonesty, in particular the test set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67. 

34.    In relation to Particular 1, the Panel found the facts proved for the following reasons:

•    The Court extract confirmed the conviction on 12 March 2024 following a guilty plea from the Registrant;

•    The Panel noted the documents in relation to the community order and disqualification resulting from the conviction; and

•    The Registrant had made an admission to this Particular during this hearing.

The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 1 proved on the balance of probabilities.

35.    In relation to Particular 2, the Panel found the facts proved for the following reasons:

•    The Court extract confirmed the conviction on 12 March 2024 following a guilty plea from the Registrant;

•    The Panel noted the documents in relation to the community order and disqualification resulting from the conviction; and

•    The Registrant had made an admission to this Particular during this hearing.

The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 2 proved on the balance of probabilities.

36.    In relation to Particular 3, the Panel found the facts proved for the following reasons:

•    The Court extract confirmed the conviction on 12 March 2024 following a guilty plea from the Registrant;

•    The Panel noted the documents in relation to the community order and disqualification resulting from the conviction; and

•    The Registrant had made an admission to this Particular during this hearing.

The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 3 proved on the balance of probabilities.

37.    In relation to Particular 4, the Panel found the facts proved for the following reasons:

•    The agreed evidence of Adam Mawson together with the documents exhibited confirming the Registrant had not confirmed a change in character in his registration renewal;

•    The Registrant’s evidence on affirmation that he had not confirmed this information within the registration renewal; and

•    The Registrant’s admission to this Particular during this hearing.

The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 4 proved on the balance of probabilities.

38.    In relation to Particular 5, the Panel found the facts proved in relation to failing to notify the HCPC of the charges and the convictions for the following reasons:

•    The agreed evidence of Adam Mawson together with the documents exhibited;

•    The Registrant’s evidence on affirmation that he had failed to notify the HCPC of the charges or conviction; and

•    The Registrant’s admission to this Particular during this hearing.

The Panel therefore found the facts of Particular 5 proved on the balance of probabilities.

39.    In relation to Particular 6, the Panel did not find this fact proved on the balance of probabilities.

40.    The Panel noted the HCPC’s case that the Registrant had deliberately failed to disclose the police charges made against him on 17 February 2024, he had deliberately failed to disclose the criminal convictions recorded against him on 12 March 2024 and he had deliberately failed to disclose the change in his character in his registration renewal form submitted on 8 April 2024.  The HCPC’s case was that the Registrant had deliberately acted in this way in order to conceal the convictions from the HCPC and that his actions in doing so were dishonest.

41.    The Panel noted that the burden to prove the allegation was on the HCPC on the balance of probabilities.

42.    The Panel considered the test set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 in relation to the alleged dishonesty, in order to determine whether the Registrant acted as an honest person would have acted in the circumstances. 

43.    The Panel first considered what the Registrant knew or believed as to the facts and circumstances in which the alleged dishonesty arose.  

44.    The Panel determined that the Registrant had acted deliberately in failing to disclose the charges, the convictions and the change in his character to the HCPC.  It considered the evidence provided, including the oral evidence of the Registrant on affirmation.  The Panel agreed the following:

•    The Registrant knew he had been charged with criminal offences and that he had been convicted in a Criminal Court after pleading guilty to those offences.  This was an unequivocal fact.  The charges were not a minor issue.  They had resulted in a monetary fine, a community order and a lengthy disqualification so were clearly not considered a minor issue by the Criminal Court;

•    The Registrant’s account that he had only “passively” read and considered the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics was not entirely accepted and, if correct, was woeful and reckless;

•    The Registrant either knew or should have been reasonably expected to know that there was a requirement for him to be familiar with the standards under which he practised;

•    The Registrant’s explanation of how the offences were regarded in India was not accepted, in that drink driving offences were not considered serious but driving without a licence or insurance was very serious;

•    The Registrant had deliberately completed the renewal form confirming his character had not changed;

•    However, at the moment the Registrant completed the renewal form, he did not believe, albeit incorrectly, that the convictions were a matter relating to his character that he needed to report.

45.    However, the Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had failed to disclose the charges, convictions and change in his character in order to conceal this information from the HCPC for the following reasons:

•    The Registrant had only been practising in the UK for a short period of time when the failures to disclose the information took place;

•    His account on affirmation was that he had a lot going on in his life at the time of these incidents;

•    Whilst there was no supporting evidence from the Registrant’s senior colleague concerned, the Panel accepted the Registrant’s account on affirmation that a conversation took place with a senior colleague and this prompted his disclosure of the convictions to the HCPC by email on 13 April 2024;

•    This disclosure to the HCPC took place only 5 days after the Registrant had submitted the registration renewal application on 8 April 2024 confirming there had been no change to his character;

•    This disclosure, so soon after the submission of the registration renewal form, was inconsistent with a deliberate attempt on behalf of the Registrant to conceal the convictions from the HCPC;

•    The disclosure on 13 April 2024 was more consistent with his state of mind prior to that date in that he did not consider the required disclosure related to convictions of this nature but related to convictions relevant to his professional practice.

•    Whilst the Registrant’s belief that he was not required to disclose convictions of this nature was incorrect and may not be considered reasonable, the Panel agreed that it was a genuinely held belief on his behalf.

46.    As such the Panel could not be satisfied that the Registrant had acted dishonestly.  It acknowledged that the burden of proof was on the HCPC to prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities, but the Panel was not satisfied that there was cogent evidence to underpin the allegation of dishonesty or to safely conclude that the Registrant sought to conceal the charges, convictions and change of character from the HCPC.  It agreed that the Registrant had deliberately failed to disclose the charges, convictions and change of character, but determined that, in light of the disclosure on 13 April 2024, he did not fail to do so with an intention to conceal them from the HCPC and therefore his failure to disclose the information was not dishonest.

47.    The Panel went on to consider, given the Registrant’s knowledge and belief of the circumstances they were in, whether the Registrant’s conduct would be considered dishonest by the standards of an “ordinary decent person”.  The Panel acknowledged that this was purely and objective test and that the Registrant’s own standards of honesty are irrelevant. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s failure to comply with the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics was reckless, negligent and not something it would expect from a Registrant.  However, it determined that, in light of the Registrant’s email to the HCPC on 13 April 2024 disclosing the convictions to them, it was more persuaded by his explanation that he misunderstood his obligations as this disclosure appears to be inconsistent with an intention to conceal the convictions from the HCPC. 

48.    In conclusion, the Panel did not find the fact in Particular 6 proved on the balance of probabilities.

Decision on Grounds:

Submissions

49.    Ms Khaile addressed the Panel in respect of the grounds of conviction and misconduct. 

50.    She outlined the definition of misconduct in accordance with the case of Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] AC 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 …”

51.    Ms Khaile also outlined the requirement of seriousness in accordance with the case of Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin) in 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. It is of course possible for negligent conduct to amount to serious professional misconduct, but the negligence must be to a high degree…There are no closed categories and the appropriate standard is a matter for the Committee to decide. It is not restricted to conduct which is morally blameworthy. It could, as I have indicated, include seriously negligent treatment or failure to provide treatment measured by objective professional standards”. 

52.    Ms Khaile submitted that the facts alleged in the proven Particulars 4 and 5 established that the Registrant had acted in a way that fell far below what would be proper in the circumstances and what the public would expect of a HCPC registered Physiotherapist. 

53.    She submitted that the Registrant had breached the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (January 2016 – August 2024) in relation to the following standards:

•    Standard 9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession; and
•    Standard 9.5 - You must tell us as soon as possible, if you accept a caution from the police or you have been charged with, or found guilty of, a criminal offence.
 
54.    In addition, Ms Khaile submitted that the Registrant’s conduct in relation to Particulars 4 and 5 breached the following standards set out within the HCPC’s Standards of proficiency for Physiotherapists (Post-2023):

•    Standard 2 - Practise within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession;
 
•    Standard 2.1 - Maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct; and

•    Standard 2.4 - Understand what is required of them by the Health and Care Professions Council, including, but not limited to, the standards of conduct, performance and ethics. 

55.    Ms Khaile submitted that the identified breaches of the HCPC Standards in relation to the proven Particulars 4 and 5 supported a finding of the statutory ground of misconduct.

56.    The Registrant made no submissions in relation to the grounds of conviction or misconduct.

Panel’s Decision on Grounds:

57.    The Panel considered whether the facts found proved in Particulars 1 to 5 of the Allegation amounted to the grounds of conviction and/or misconduct.

58.    The Panel was mindful that this is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgment, there being no standard or burden of proof.

59.    The Panel took account of the submissions of Ms Khaile and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

60.    The Panel determined that the factual finding that the convictions recorded against the Registrant as alleged by Particular 1 to 3 inclusive, necessarily involved a finding that the statutory ground of conviction is made out.

61.    With regard to misconduct, the Panel considered the definition as confirmed in the case of Roylance v GMC (No 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 311 and also the requirement of seriousness in accordance with the case of Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin).  The Panel approached the matter on the basis that it would need to be satisfied that the proven conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to professional misconduct.  

62.    The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of Standards 9.1 and 9.5 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016) as outlined by Ms Khaile.

63.    The Panel also found the Registrant to have been in breach of Standards 2, 2.1 and 2.4 of the HCPC’s Standards of proficiency for physiotherapists.

64.    Having applied the test, the Panel agreed that both the convictions and the Registrant’s actions thereafter in deliberately failing to disclose the charges and convictions to the HCPC, in addition to failing to disclose his change in character on the HCPC registration renewal form, were morally blameworthy conduct.  

65.    The Panel was satisfied that, on the Registrant’s own admission, he had made a choice to practice when he was completely unfamiliar with the standards required of him by his professional regulator.  Whist the Panel noted that the Registrant was newly registered with the HCPC as a Physiotherapist, he should have familiarised himself with the relevant rules and regulations relating to that role.  His account that he had passively read the HCPC Standards and not properly considered the content was both reckless and negligent and fell far short of what was expected of a registered professional.

66.    The Panel agreed that the Registrant’s conduct 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.

67.    The Panel determined the conduct alleged in the proven Particulars constituted misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.

Decision on Impairment:

Submissions

68.    Ms Khaile confirmed that the HCPC does not propose to present any evidence on the issue of impairment and that the decision whether the proven facts amount to impairment of the Registrant’s fitness to practise is a matter for the Panel.

69.    Ms Khaile referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Fitness to Practise Impairment and outlined the guidance and considerations the Panel will need to take into account when assessing if the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. She referred to the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) and highlighted the need to focus on public protection and the ‘critically important public policy issues’ which are: 

i.    protecting service users 
ii.    declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour, and 
iii.    maintaining public confidence in the profession concerned. 

70.    Ms Khaile submitted that, in order to properly assess whether the Registrant is currently fit to practise, two broad components, should be considered by the Panel, those being the ‘personal’ component and the ‘public’ component and took the Panel through the considerations to assist in their determination in relation to these components.

71.    With regard to the ‘personal component’, Ms Khaile invited the Panel to consider whether the Registrant’s acts are remediable in light of the seriousness of the allegations, the Registrant’s insight into his conduct and any remediation he has undertaken. 

72.    In regard to the ‘public component’, Ms Khaile submitted that members of the public expect healthcare professionals, in whom they place their trust at times of vulnerability, to uphold standards and abide by the law by not engaging in such serious criminal activities. It was submitted that, should the Registrant continue to practise unrestricted, it is highly likely that fellow physiotherapists, service users and the wider public would be unable to place their trust in such professionals and/or the profession, regulator and regulatory process. 

73.    Ms Khaile submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired and that the conduct in the allegation is so serious that the wider public interest requires a finding of impairment, even if the Panel does not consider a finding of impairment is necessary to protect the public. 

74.    The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel on affirmation.  He stated that it was only after the incident that he understood the gravity of the situation and how drink driving is serious which had not been his initial perception.  He stated that during the incident he had stopped the car when requested to do so by the police, he co-operated with them and did not touch the car after that.  He referred to the Court proceedings and later informing the HCPC about the situation.

75.    [Redacted].

76.    In response to questions from the Panel, the Registrant stated:

•    He had completely stopped drinking alcohol for more than 14 months and his intention was to remain abstinent;

•    He has not re-instated his UK driving licence since his disqualification;

•    He currently drives in India;

•    He is currently working as a physiotherapist in India and there are no concerns about his practice;

•    He has not pursued any particular training in relation to the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics since the incident, but has decided to be more responsible to the profession and more socially responsible to the world and community.  He had pursued not official training but had read many articles and had started considering the character of how a professional should be behaving; and

•    He is unsure whether a member of the public would be confident in the profession or in coming to him if they knew of his convictions or his failure to disclose those convictions.  He feels his life is totally different to how it was before and that the public would trust him, as a result of how he was leading his life after the incidents and over the last year.  He stated that anyone who knew him would come to him for treatment.

Panel’s Decision on Impairment:

77.    The Panel was reminded by the Legal Assessor that the test to consider is whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired today rather than at the time the concerns were raised. The Panel was also referred to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Fitness to Practise Impairment, in particular the guidance in relation to both the personal and public components, to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in respect of each component.

78.    In relation to the personal component, the Panel agreed that the Registrant’s behaviours in respect of the convictions and misconduct are potentially remediable, however it noted that there was no evidence from the Registrant that he had remediated in any way.  He had not pursued any formal training and, whilst his account is that he had read articles, there was no evidence as to what these articles were about or what he had learned from them.  The Panel also noted the information provided by the Registrant in relation to his current circumstances and employment, although he had not produced any documentary evidence in support of this for the Panel’s consideration.

79.    In relation to insight, the Panel agreed that the Registrant still did not appreciate how serious his actions in relation to the drink driving incident had been.  The Panel noted the Registrant’s comments in the hearing that drink driving was not taken seriously in India and that he did not believe the HCPC would take it so seriously.  The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had stopped his vehicle for the police and co-operated with them, he had pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings and complied with the community order and disqualification from driving.  However, the Panel noted that the police summary relating to those offences described the Registrant’s car as “swerving all over the road and the manner of driving was dangerous” when he was over 3 times over the legal drink drive limit and was concerned the Registrant did not appear to appreciate how his actions could have resulted in very serious consequences. The Panel noted that the Registrant had demonstrated some level of remorse, although this appeared to be centred on how the incident had personally impacted on him, rather than how his actions may have impacted on others or on his profession. 

80.    The Panel agreed that it was essential for health care professionals to engage and comply with the rules and standards of their regulator in order to keep members of the public safe, although there was no evidence from the Registrant that he acknowledged that.  The Panel had concerns that the Registrant had, by his actions, demonstrated a wilful disregard of the standards and regulations to which it would expect a professional to adhere.

81.    The Panel therefore agreed that there is a very high risk of the Registrant repeating the conduct and determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of the personal component.

82.    In relation to the public component of impairment of fitness to practise, the Panel noted that it is required to consider protection of the public from the risk of harm, ensuring that public confidence in the profession is maintained and upholding proper professional standards. 

83.    The Panel’s finding in relation to the personal component confirms the need to protect the public from the risk of future harm. The Panel agreed that ordinary members of the public would be horrified by the Registrant’s behaviour in failing to uphold professional standards and abide by the law and that service users would lose trust and confidence in the profession and the regulatory process were there to be no finding of impairment.  

84.    As a result, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in relation to both the personal and public components.

Decision on Sanction:

Submissions

85.    Ms Khaile confirmed that sanction is a matter for the Panel and reminded the Panel that their role is not to punish the Registrant.  

86.    Ms Khaile referred the Panel to the relevant guidance in the Sanctions Policy updated in March 2026 and also the Health Professions Order 2001 which sets out the potential sanctions available.  She helpfully outlined the sanctions and orders available, confirming that these must be considered in ascending order, taking into account all aspects of the case. She submitted that the sanction decided upon should be the least restrictive to address the sanction aims which included the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulation of it, together with the declaration of proper professional standards.

87.    Ms Khaile referred the Panel to the guidance in relation to the assessment of mitigating and aggravating factors, submitting that the only mitigating factors of relevance in this case were the Registrant’s remorse and insight, although she submitted that evidence of these was limited in this case. In relation to aggravating factors, Ms Khaile referred to the potential risk of harm to patients, the Registrant not meeting the standards required of registered physiotherapists and the lack of evidence of any remediation.  Ms Khaile also referred the Panel to the guidance within the Sanctions Policy in relation to admissions and what weight should be given to them.

88.    The Registrant submitted that he agreed with Ms Khaile that he had not taken the matter of drinking and driving seriously at the time and apologised for that. He accepted that, at the time, he had been considering the impact on himself, his own burdens and problems, but agreed that his personal problems should not affect the community and apologised.

89.    In relation to remorse, the Registrant submitted that he had tried his best and made efforts to better himself, [Redacted], but in the last year he believed God had miraculously healed him and everything in his life had started to resolve.  He said that since then his performance, both personally and professionally had improved, he had involved himself in both community and spiritual activities and had also become involved in the business and service aspects of his profession.  He asked the Panel to consider these changes within himself in the last year.  He confirmed that he had not completed any particular course and had not had the opportunity to do so, but that he had been slowly changing the pattern in which he used to think and see things and feels that his mind and body had now completely healed.

Decision on sanction

90.    The Panel considered the submissions made by Ms Khaile and the Registrant, together with the advice of the Legal Assessor. 

91.    Accordingly, the Panel acknowledged that punishment of the Registrant should form no part of the reason for the imposition of a sanction. Rather, protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulation of it, together with the upholding of proper professional standards are factors that should dictate whether a sanction is required, and, if it is, what that sanction should be. Any sanction decided upon should be the least restrictive to address these proper sanction aims. The various sanction options must be considered in an ascending order of seriousness.

92.    The Panel considered the mitigating factors in this case and noted the following:

•    Remorse – The Panel noted the Registrant had co-operated with the police, pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings and had complied with his community order and disqualification and paid the fine.  The Panel also noted the Registrant had made admissions to the allegations found proven in these regulatory proceedings, for which they gave him appropriate credit and had provided a clearer and heartfelt apology for his actions in his submissions at the sanction stage. The Panel did however consider that the Registrant still sought to minimise his behaviour, suggesting it was just a mistake, when the Panel agreed he had made numerous deliberate, reckless and negligent decisions and his actions could not simply be explained as mistakes.  The Panel agreed that the Registrant showed acknowledgement of wrongdoing to some degree and shown the beginnings of understanding of the wider impact of his behaviour.

•    Insight – The Panel agreed that the Registrant showed some limited insight in relation to the impact of his convictions, the potential harm of his behaviour and also the potential harm of not complying with the professional Standards required of him.  The Panel felt that, whilst he demonstrated a genuine recognition of how serious his actions were considered by the HCPC and others, he had shown little understanding of how his actions affected the public or why it was considered so serious.  The Panel accepted that no actual harm had been caused by the Registrant driving his car having consumed alcohol that put him over the legal limit, however there was clearly a potential for serious harm to be caused by his actions.  The Panel agreed, however, that the Registrant showed little empathy for this which was concerning, particularly from a medical professional who should appreciate the risk and potential for harm.

•    Remediation – The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s sincerely held belief that he had been healed spiritually, although noted that this belief was not supported by any tangible medical evidence.

•    Personal circumstances at the time – The Panel noted the Registrant’s account in relation to his personal and business circumstances at the time of these incidents, that it was a turbulent and chaotic time for him which caused him stress and impacted on his well-being. 

•    Testimonials – The Panel also acknowledged the testimonials received from the Registrant’s current employer and chaplain at his place of work. It was also noted that the Registrant had been working in a voluntary position in the last year.

93.    The Panel then considered the aggravating factors in this case and noted the following:

•    Remediation – The Panel had concerns at the lack of evidence provided by the Registrant of any remediation, or evidence of any steps he had taken to remediate. The Panel noted there was no reflection to explain his actions or acknowledge the impact this had on the public or his profession. There was no evidence of any courses or training or anything to prove he had thought about the seriousness of his behaviour. The Panel acknowledged the testimonials provided, which were helpful and informative, but did not provide evidence of any remediation. The Panel noted the Registrant’s apologies during his submissions, but felt he had still not demonstrated that he understood how serious his actions were and the potential for harm to the public.   

•    Pattern of unacceptable behaviour – The Panel agreed that the initial criminal offences could be considered as one set of incidents and the failures thereafter to notify the HCPC as a second set of incidents.  The Panel considered these incidents to demonstrate a pattern of making bad choices that did not meet the ethical standards of someone in the Registrant’s professional position.  He had made the choice to drive after drinking and to drive without a licence or valid insurance.  He had made the choice not to inform the HCPC of the charge or the convictions and to tick the incorrect box when renewing his registration.  He had also made the choice not to read the professional standards required of him, or to understand his professional obligations.  By making these choices, he had chosen not to engage with the rules, whether that be the law of the country or the professional standards required of him.

•    Lack of insight – The Panel agreed that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate insight that he understood the seriousness of his actions or the potential consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol.

•    Potential for harm – The Panel acknowledged that no actual harm had been caused by the Registrant driving after consuming alcohol, but agreed that the potential for harm to the general public as a result of his actions was enormous.

94.    The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors and how they affected their assessment of seriousness.  The Panel agreed that the Registrant’s actions were very serious in any event, but the lack of remediation, in particular, caused the Panel concern as this increased the risk of repetition and therefore increased the risk to the public. 
 
95.    The Panel therefore agreed that this is a case that requires the imposition of a sanction. To take no further action would neither protect the public from the risk of future harm that has already been identified, nor would it maintain confidence in the profession or the regulator. For the same reason a Caution Order would not be appropriate. 

96.    The Panel also agreed that this case does not involve clinical shortcomings and therefore it is difficult to formulate conditions of practice that can satisfactorily address the behavioural shortcomings demonstrated by the Registrant’s conduct.  In any event, the Panel agreed that to impose a Conditions of Practice Order would not meet the public interest, in light of the conviction for drink driving at quite a significant level.

97.    The Panel then considered a Suspension Order and the guidance within the Sanctions Policy.  The Panel agreed that the concerns were serious and considered whether a Suspension Order would adequately meet their overarching consideration of protecting the public.  It also considered whether a Suspension Order would satisfy the wider public interest, including the maintenance of the public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. 

98.    The Panel acknowledged that a Suspension Order would protect the public from the risk of future harm for the duration of the Order but had concerns that the Registrant created an ongoing risk to the public, particularly as he has demonstrated that he does not take the rules or standards seriously.  

99.    The Panel therefore considered whether a Striking Off Order was appropriate, although noted this was very much a last resort.  The Panel again considered the Sanctions Policy and agreed that the Registrant’s insight was extremely limited and therefore his actions were highly likely to be repeated.  It agreed the Registrant had provided no evidence to suggest he is able to remedy his failings, despite having had the opportunity to do so and therefore the Panel had little confidence he would be able to remediate, even though the behaviours are considered to be remediable.

100.    The Panel however discussed whether a Striking Off Order was proportionate at this stage and whether it was appropriate to give the Registrant a further opportunity to demonstrate insight and remediation if he was allowed extra time.  The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant had engaged with the regulatory proceedings so far and during this hearing appeared to show a change in his insight, particularly when addressing the Panel in relation to sanction, showing some remorse and apologising for his actions.  

101.    The Panel therefore stepped back from a Striking Off Order agreeing that it was disproportionate at this stage and agreed that a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months would not only protect the public but would give him the opportunity over the course of a year to demonstrate insight and practise safely.

102.    The Panel considered that the following would assist a future Panel when reviewing the Suspension Order:

•    The Registrant’s continued attendance and engagement with the regulatory proceedings;

•    A detailed reflective statement to address the impact of his conviction on both public protection and public confidence in the profession and also to acknowledge the relationship between the conduct in his private life and his profession;

•    Evidence of training that relates to his understanding and application of the professional standards expected of him;

•    Testimonials that speak to his ability to work within a regulatory framework; and

•    Any documentary information he can provide about his management of his health and well-being, including testimonials from healthcare professionals and any support groups he has attended.

103.    The Panel therefore determined that the appropriate sanction in this case was a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months. The Panel considered their overarching objective is to protect the public and in this case such an order was necessary and proportionate.

104.    The Panel considered whether this sanction was a proportionate response and took into account the Registrant’s interests and how such an Order would affect him. However, the Panel agreed that the Registrant’s interests were outweighed by their overarching requirement to protect the public.

105.    The Panel was therefore satisfied that a Suspension Order was a proportionate response.  It determined that no lesser sanction would protect the public from the risk of repetition or would sufficiently ensure public confidence in the Profession or would send an appropriate message to other registrants of the unacceptability of the Registrant’s actions.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Bijoy Bridewin Thomas for a period of 12 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: 

106.    Ms Khaile made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months. Ms Khaile pointed out that the primary order would not take effect for at least 28 days and the public would not be protected by any order until then. If an appeal were to be made by the Registrant, the primary order would not come into effect until that appeal had been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of.
 
107.    Ms Khaile submitted that it was necessary that an interim suspension order was imposed for reasons of public protection and that it is otherwise in the public interest.  She also submitted that it was proportionate to impose an interim order as it related only to the period prior to the primary order coming into effect. 

108.    The Registrant confirmed that he understood the application made by Ms Khaile and that he had no submissions to make to the Panel.

Decision:

109.    The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the guidance as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Interim Orders updated in June 2026. In particular the Panel had regard to the section relating to interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed. 

110.    The Panel was advised to consider whether such an order is necessary for the protection of the public, otherwise in the public interest, or if it is in the Registrant’s own interests. The Panel also considered the principle of proportionality, balancing the Registrant’s interests against the need to protect the public. 

111.    The Panel considered whether to impose an Interim Order. In its findings on impairment the Panel concluded that there is a need to protect the public from the risk of harm.  The Panel decided that it would be wholly incompatible with those earlier findings and the imposition of a Suspension Order to conclude that an Interim Suspension Order was not necessary for the protection of the public.

112.    The Panel agreed there was no evidence to suggest that an interim order was necessary in the Registrant’s own interests.

113.    For the same reasons given in its determination on sanction, the Panel concluded that an Interim Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate. The Panel therefore determined that an 18-month Interim Suspension Order is appropriate and proportionate pending the expiration of an appeal period. 

114.    The Panel took into account the Registrant’s interests but decided that his interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public. The Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on public protection grounds and otherwise in the public interest.

Interim Suspension Order: 

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

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

 

History of Hearings for Bijoy Bridewin Thomas

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
02/09/2026	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended