Mr Kyle Harris
Profession: Radiographer
Registration Number: RA64322
Interim Order:
Imposed on 11 Dec 2024
Hearing Type: Final Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 11:00 28/09/2026
End: 18:00 01/10/2026
Location:
virtual
Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee
Outcome: Struck off
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Radiographer (RA64322):
1. Between 26 January 2024 and 1 March 2024, you made one or more inappropriate comments to Medical Sciences Secretariat staff and others as set out in Schedule A.
2. On or around 11 September 2023, you provided inaccurate information to the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologies Board as part of your application for restoration to the register in that you confirmed you had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings.
3. Your conduct at Particular 2 above was dishonest in that:
a) You knew that you were required to inform the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologies Board that you had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by your former employer(s);
b) In failing to do so, you sought to conceal you had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by your former employer(s) from the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologies Board.
4. The matters set out in Particular(s) 1 – 3 constitute misconduct.
5. By reason of misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.
Schedule A
26 January 2024 - you guys really are a bunch of d***heads
29 January 2024 - go f*** yourself
- Hey douchebag.
- It takes literally a week to get a reply and it's some pillock who asks for something I have already provided.
- Shite behaviour, shite service from Shite people at nzmrt.
- It's nice that your inclusive, but obviously you aren't mentally competent to understand f*** off. So maybe ask your carer to explain.
- Stop messaging me. I hope the earthquake shallows your office with you in it.
1 March 2024 - My response is you can go f*** yourself.
Finding
Preliminary Matters:
Service
1. A Notice of Hearing was sent to the Registrant by email, both at his registered email address and a further email address provided by him on 28 July 2026. The Notice contained all required information in relation to this Hearing.
2. The Panel had sight of confirmation that the email sent to the further address provided by the Registrant had been delivered.
3. The Panel was satisfied that Notice had been properly served in accordance with Rule 3 and Rule 6 of the Conduct and Competence Committee (Procedure) Rules (the Rules) and the HCPTS Practice Note on Service of Documents.
Proceed in Absence
4. Ms Dixon made an application for the Hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence in accordance with Rule 11. She referred the Panel to the Notice of Hearing and submitted it had been properly served. Ms Dixon further referred the Panel to various emails communications between the Registrant and the HCPC and submitted that these clearly showed that the Registrant did not intend to engage in this Hearing and had stated that he wished to be removed from the HCPC register.
5. Ms Dixon submitted that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance and the public interest in proceeding outweighed the Registrant’s interests and it was fair to proceed in his absence.
6. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and the case of GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162.
7. The Panel determined that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure his attendance. The Panel took into account the various emails from the Registrant and concluded that he clearly indicated that he did not intend to engage in this Hearing or the regulatory process.
8. The Panel was mindful of the public interest in having the regulatory allegations dealt with as expeditiously as possible and determined that in these circumstances the public interest outweighed the information relating to the expiry of the Registrant’s interest.
9. In all these circumstances the Panel determined that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of the Registrant and granted Ms Dixon’s application.
Application to have evidence received late
10. Ms Dixon applied to have a supplementary statement from a proposed witness, SC, to be admitted in accordance with Rule10. Ms Dixon explained that the supplementary statement contained information relating to the Registrant’s registration with the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologists Board (MRTB) and was relevant to the matters to be considered by the Panel. She referred the Panel to letters to the Registrant giving him notice of the HCPC’s intention to apply to have this document admitted and noted that he had not replied or objected to the application.
11. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
12. The Panel determined that the supplementary statement was relevant and in all the circumstances it was fair to admit it and granted Ms Dixon’s application.
Background:
13. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Radiographer. He was previously registered with the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologists Board (“MRTB”) from 6 September 2010 until he was removed from their register on 16 December 2020.
14. The reason for his removal from the register was that he had allowed his registration to lapse and had not sought to renew it for a period of at least 5 years. The procedure at the MRTB is that the MRTB can reach out to professionals who have not had an annual practising certificate within the previous 5 years. If the professional does not respond or confirms that they do not wish to remain on the register, they can be removed from the register under the instruction of the MRTB.
15. Professionals who have been removed from the MTRB register in this way can apply for restoration to the register.
16. On 18 May 2023, the Registrant contacted the Medical Services Secretariat (“MSS”), which is the body which provides regulatory services for the MTRB, indicating that he wished to re-join the register as a Radiographer and with MRI as an additional scope of practice.
17. Because the Registrant wished to re-join the register and add an additional scope of practice, correspondence followed between him and staff from the MSS.
18. As part of the process of rejoining the register, the Registrant had to provide documentation to the MSS, such as a certificate of good standing from the HCPC, his criminal conviction history, and make other relevant declarations.
19. The Registrant submitted a restoration to the register form dated 11 September 2023 and provided other supporting documentation.
20. The restoration to the register form includes a section in which the applicant is invited to tick, or not tick as the case may be, a number of boxes to make declarations before signing and dating those declarations. This includes:
a. “I confirm that since I was last registered and/or last held an APC [Annual Practising Certificate] with the Board: - […] I have not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings and are not currently subject to any disciplinary proceedings.”
21. The Registrant ticked the box to make this declaration and signed the declaration on 11 September 2023.
22. It is alleged that this declaration was false, the Registrant having twice been subject to disciplinary proceedings since he left New Zealand. It is further alleged that the disciplinary proceedings were as follows:
a. The Registrant was employed by County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust as a Band 5 Radiographer from June 2012 until he was dismissed on 13 June 2014. The reason for his dismissal was because, following a disciplinary hearing held on 13 June 2014 and 19 June 2014, the Registrant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The Registrant appealed this decision unsuccessfully.
b. Subsequently, the Registrant was employed by Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust from 7 August 2017, initially as a Band 5 Radiographer and later as a Band 6 Radiographer in the MRI department, until he was dismissed on 15 August 2023. The reason for the Registrant’s dismissal was that, at a disciplinary hearing held on 15 August 2023, findings were made which were tantamount to gross misconduct and it was therefore decided that the Registrant would be summarily dismissed from his post with immediate effect.
23. The Registration team at the MSS missed that the Registrant provided a completed restoration to the register form and supporting material on 11 September 2023. As a result, they asked him to send the information again in an email from HR, a Professional Standards Advisor, dated 25 January 2024.
24. It is alleged that the Registrant responded to this email by stating, “I give up. You make it impossible. Cancel everything and refund my money.” HR replied on 26 January 2024 indicating that the fees are non-refundable. In response, on 26 January 2024 at 23:27pm, the Registrant allegedly emailed HR saying, "you guys really are a bunch of d***heads.”
25. As a result of the manner in which the Registrant had communicated, the Registrar, CB, sent an email to the Registrant on 28 January 2024 at 20:07 in which he explained that the Registrant’s earlier email was totally unacceptable, and that abuse of staff would not be tolerated. He then set out the outstanding steps that the Registrant would need to complete in order to be restored to the register and reminded the Registrant of the requirement to act professionally at all times if wishing to practise medical imaging in New Zealand.
26. The Registrar sent a follow-up email also on 28 January 2024 reiterating that the Registrant’s behaviour was unacceptable and indicating that he would be treating the matter as a professional standards issue and that, as a result, should the Registrant be restored to the register, the MRTB would need to consider whether he meets the fitness to practise requirements.
27. It is alleged that at 11:14 on 29 January 2024, the Registrant responded to CB’s email. His response began with “hey douchebag”. He then criticised the MRTB for having messed him around for months and requested the same documents multiple times before continuing [sic]:
“It takes literally a week to get a reply and it’s some pillock who asks for something I have already provided. Shite behavior, shite service from Shite people at nzmrt. It’s nice that your inclusive, but obviously you aren’t mentally competent to understand f*** off. So maybe ask your carer to explain. Stop messaging me. I hope the earthquake shallows your office with you in it.”
28. The Registrar brought the Registrant’s conduct to the attention of SC, the Chief Executive of the MSS, on 30 January 2024 and completed an incident report the following day.
29. A review was conducted of the correspondence with the Registrant and, on 1 March 2024, SC sent a letter to the Registrant by email. In her letter, SC apologised that the Registrant’s application for restoration to the register was not actioned following receipt of the completed form and indicated that their review had highlighted a number of system improvements which will be addressed.
30. She then went on to address the nature of the Registrants’ communication with her staff, explaining that the content of the emails was rude, offensive and not of a professional standard. SC reiterated the Registrar’s earlier indication that, should the Registrant be restored to the register, his communications would be referred to the professional standards process. SC also advised that, should he communicate with her staff in an offensive manner again, she would have to consider further action, which could include a referral to the HCPC.
31. It is alleged that the Registrant responded by email at 20:37 on the same day stating “My response is you can go f*** yourself. Stop messaging me.”
32. SC then referred the matter to the HCPC on 13 March 2026.
Evidence and submissions
33. The Panel heard oral evidence and received documentary evidence from the following witnesses:
• AD, Service Line Manager for Endoscopy, Audiology and Screening Services Gateshead Health NHS Trust;
• SW, Human Resources and Compliance Business Partner County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust;
• SC, Chief Executive of the Medical Sciences Secretariat, New Zealand.
34. Ms Dixon submitted that the Panel should find all factual particulars proved.
35. In relation to Particular 1, Ms Dixon submitted that there was clear evidence that the comments set out in schedule 1 had been made. She referred the Panel to the evidence of SC and identified the various email communications produced by SC. Ms Dixon submitted that all the individuals that had communicated with the Registrant had done so in a professional manner. She accepted that there had been failings and oversights in the processing of the Registrant’s application for restoration to the register of the MRTB and that this might have been frustrating for the Registrant, but that did not excuse the language used by the Registrant. Ms Dixon submitted that the language used by the Registrant went far beyond what was acceptable in the circumstances.
36. In relation to the various comments contained in emails to CB on 29 January 2024, Ms Dixon submitted that whilst CB, as the Registrar was not a member of Medical Sciences Secretariat staff, he fell under the terms ‘and others’ as narrated in Particular 1. She submitted that in his communications with the Registrant, CB acted professionally by advising the Registrant that his comments to staff were inappropriate and seeking to ensure MSS staff were treated appropriately.
37. In relation to the comments made by the Registrant in emails to SC on 1 March 2024, Ms Dixon submitted that SC was doing her job and had apologised for the oversights in the processing of the Registrant’s application and acting courteously and professionally.
38. In relation to Particular 2, Ms Dixon referred the Panel to the evidence of AD and SW and the documents produced by them. She submitted that this clearly showed that the Registrant had been subject to disciplinary proceedings at County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Foundation Trust in June 2014 and Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust in August 2023. She referred the Panel to the evidence of SC and the Registrant’s application form for restoration produced by her. She submitted that it was clear that the Registrant had ticked the box on the form declaring [sic] ‘I have not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings and are not subject to any disciplinary proceedings.’
39. Ms Dixon submitted that the Registrant had been registered with the MRTB between September 2010 and December 2020. She also referred to the evidence of SC that the Registrant would have had access to the relevant guidance when completing his restoration application and would have been aware that any disciplinary proceedings were required to be disclosed to allow consideration of an applicant’s fitness to practice. Ms Dixon submitted that the Registrant’s actions were not an error or oversight but deliberate non-disclosure.
40. In relation to Particular 3, Ms Dixon referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’. She submitted that the Registrant was aware that he was required to disclose the disciplinary proceedings in his restoration application and had deliberately not done so. She asked the Panel to note that the Registrant completed the application form shortly after his dismissal for gross misconduct by Gateshead Foundation NHS Trust on 15 August 2023. She submitted that the Registrant would be fully aware of this and the preceding disciplinary proceedings and had deliberately sought to conceal this information from thew MRTB. Ms Dixon submitted that this would be considered dishonest by the ordinary decent person.
Decision on Facts:
41. In reaching its decision on facts, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence before it, including the oral evidence of the various witnesses, relevant exhibits and the submissions of Ms Dixon.
42. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred it to the case of Ivey v Gentings Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’.
43. The Panel was aware that the burden of proof lay on the HCPC and the standard of proof was that of the balance of probabilities. The Panel considered each allegation in turn.
Particular 1 – Found Proved in totality
Between 26 January 2024 and 1 March 2024, you made one or more inappropriate comments to Medical Sciences Secretariat staff and others as set out in Schedule A.
Schedule A
26 January 2024 - you guys really are a bunch of d***heads
29 January 2024 - go f*** yourself
- Hey douchebag.
- It takes literally a week to get a reply and it's some pillock who asks for something I have already provided.
- Shite behaviour, shite service from Shite people at nzmrt.
- It's nice that your inclusive, but obviously you aren't mentally competent to understand f*** off. So maybe ask your carer to explain.
- Stop messaging me. I hope the earthquake shallows your office with you in it.
1 March 2024 - My response is you can go f*** yourself.
44. In reaching its conclusions in relation to this Particular, the Panel took into account all relevant evidence before it. In particular the Panel took into account the evidence of SC and the documents produced by her.
45. In considering this Particular, the Panel applied the ordinary everyday definition of inappropriate as being not suitable, appropriate or right for the particular circumstances.
46. The Panel determined that SC’s evidence was consistent with the contemporaneous documentation produced by her and that her account of events was inherently probable. The Panel further determined that there was nothing before it to undermine the contents of the various documents produced by SC.
47. The Panel determined that the Registrant on 26 January 2024, emailed HR and stated ‘you guys really are a bunch of d***heads’.
48. The Panel also determined that on 29 January 2024 at 9:12 the Registrant emailed CB the MRTB Registrar and stated, ‘go f*** yourself’ and at 11:14 further emailed CB and stated ‘Hey douchebag. It takes literally a week to get a reply and it's some pillock who asks for something I have already provided- Shite behaviour, shite service from Shite people at nzmrt.
- It's nice that your inclusive, but obviously you aren't mentally competent to understand f*** off. So maybe ask your carer to explain.
- Stop messaging me. I hope the earthquake shallows your office with you in it.’
- My response is you can go f*** yourself.
49. The Panel further determined that on 1 March 2024, the Registrant emailed SC and stated ‘My response is you can go f*** yourself'.
50. The Panel determined that CB and SC were ‘others’ as narrated in Particular 1.
51. The Panel took into account that there had been oversights and delays in processing the Registrant’s restoration application. However, the Panel determined that, even taking this into account all the comments set out in Schedule A were inappropriate.
52. The Panel therefore found Particular 1 proved in relation to all parts of Schedule A.
Particular 2 – Found Proved
On or around 11 September 2023, you provided inaccurate information to the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologies Board as part of your application for restoration to the register in that you confirmed you had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings.
53. In reaching its conclusion in relation to this Particular the Panel took into account all relevant evidence before it. In particular the Panel took into account the evidence of SC, AD and SW and all documentation produced by them.
54. The Panel determined that the evidence of SC, AD and SW was consistent with the contemporaneous documentation produced by them and that their account of events was inherently probable. The Panel further determined that there was nothing before it to undermine the contents of the various documents produced by these witnesses.
55. The Panel took into account the evidence of SW that in June 2014 the Registrant was subject to disciplinary proceedings by County Durham and Darlington NHC Trust and was summarily dismissed by it on 19 June 2014. This evidence was consistent with the contemporaneous documentation produced by SW. The Panel determined that the Registrant therefore had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in June 2014.
56. The Panel further took into account the evidence of AD that the Registrant was subject to disciplinary proceedings by Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust in August 2023 and dismissed by it on 15 August 2023. This evidence was consistent with the contemporaneous documentation produced by AD. The Panel determined that the Registrant therefore had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in June 2014.
57. The Panel also took into account the evidence of SC and the copy of the restoration application form completed by the Registrant, signed by him on 11 September 2023, and produced by SC. The Panel noted that in particular on the application form the Registrant had ticked that box that stated, ‘I have not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings and are not subject to any disciplinary proceedings.’ The Panel determined that the Registrant had therefore provided inaccurate information to the MRTB as part of his application in confirming that he had not been subject to disciplinary proceedings.
58. Particular 2 is therefore found proved.
Particular 3 – Found Proved
Your conduct at Particular 2 above was dishonest in that:
a) You knew that you were required to inform the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologies Board that you had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by your former employer(s);
b) In failing to do so, you sought to conceal you had been subject to disciplinary proceedings by your former employer(s) from the New Zealand Medical Radiation Technologies Board.
59. In reaching its conclusion in relation to this Particular the Panel took into account all relevant evidence before it. In particular the Panel took into account the evidence of SC, AD and SW and all documentation produced by them.
60. The Panel determined that the evidence of SC, AD and SW was consistent with the contemporaneous documentation produced by them and that their account of events was inherently probable. The Panel further determined that there was nothing before it to undermine the contents of the various documents produced by these witnesses.
61. The Panel also took into account the case of Ivey v Gentings Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 and the HCPTS Practice Note on ‘Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind’ and applied the test for dishonesty set out there in.
62. In respect of the Registrant’s state of mind the Panel considered all relevant evidence and reached a decision on the balance of probabilities.
63. The Panel took into account that the Registrant had been registered with the MRTB between September 2010 and December 2020. It also took into account the evidence of SC that the Registrant would have had access to the relevant guidance when completing his restoration application and would have been aware that any disciplinary proceedings were required to be disclosed to allow consideration of an applicant’s fitness to practise. There was nothing before the Panel to undermine this evidence. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant was aware when completing his restoration application that he was required to disclose any disciplinary proceedings to allow the MRTB to properly assess his fitness to practise as part of the restoration application.
64. The Panel also took into account the evidence of SC that, whilst it would not necessarily result in an application being refused, that previous disciplinary proceedings would require to be considered along with all other relevant information. There was no other evidence before the Panel to indicate any other reason for the Registrant not disclosing this information other than to conceal it from the MRTB.
65. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant knew he was required to disclose these previous disciplinary proceedings and had not done so in an attempt to conceal them from the MRTB.
66. The Panel further determined that an ordinary decent person would consider this action to be dishonest.
67. Particular 3 is therefore found proved.
Decision on Grounds:
Submissions on Grounds
68. Ms Dixon submitted that the facts found proved amounted to the statutory ground of misconduct. She submitted that both individually and collectively the particulars found proved amounted to misconduct.
69. Ms Dixon referred to the case of Roylance v GMC [2003] 1 AC 311 and submitted that the facts found proved amounted to breaches of paragraphs 2.7, 9.1 and 9.2 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016 being the standards in place at the relevant time. She further submitted that the facts found proved breached the preamble in relation to communicating effectively.
70. Ms Dixon submitted that the Registrant had failed to use email communications effectively and abused MSS staff who were trying to do their job. She further submitted it was not an isolated incident and occurred on three occasions over a period of 3 months. Ms Dixon referred the Panel to the evidence of SC that indicated it was necessary for the MRTB to be aware of any disciplinary concerns in order to properly assess an applicant’s fitness to practise, for restoration to the register, and that the Registrant had acted dishonestly and sought to evade this process. Ms Dixon submitted that the particulars found proved were a significant departure from the standards to be expected of a registered Radiographer.
Panel decision on Grounds
71. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
72. The Panel determined that the Registrant had breached the following paragraphs of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics 2016 (the Standards):
a) Paragraph 2.7 – You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.
b) Paragraph 9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
c) Paragraph 9.2 - You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.
73. The Panel further determined that the Registrant had breached the preamble of the Standards in failing to communicate effectively and be honest and trustworthy
74. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 1 fell seriously below expected professional standards. He made inappropriate comments on 3 occasions over a period of around 3 months and had the potential to cause harm and upset to colleagues.
75. The Panel further concluded that the Registrant’s conduct in Particular 2 fell below excepted professional standards. He deliberately provided inaccurate information to the MRTB in relation to the disciplinary procedure. This resulted in the MRTB not having all relevant information before it in relation to the Registrant’s fitness to practise with consequent potential risk to service users if he had been restored to the register.
76. The Panel also concluded that in acting dishonestly, as found proved in Particular 3, the Registrant’s conduct fell below expected professional standards. The Registrant’s dishonesty resulted in the MRTB not having all relevant information before it in relation to the Registrants fitness to practise with consequent potential risk.
77. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s conduct found proved both individually and collectively was serious and would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.
78. In the circumstances the Panel determined that the Particulars found proved amounted to misconduct.
Decision on Impairment:
79. Having found the statutory ground of misconduct, the Panel moved onto consider the question of current impairment.
80. At this stage, the Panel received an Impairment Bundle from the HCPC which included a decision of a Conduct and Competence Committee dated 28 July 2015 imposing a Caution Order for one year on the Registrant in relation to his posting inappropriate sexually explicit comments on social media regarding work colleagues and acting in an inappropriate manner towards colleagues.
Submissions on Impairment
81. Ms Dixon referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment.
82. Ms Dixon submitted that although there was no evidence of service users having suffered harm, the Registrant’s conduct reflected potential attitudinal issues. She referred to the prior caution imposed on the Registrant and submitted that the Registrants behaviour found proved in this hearing was reflective of a pattern of behaviour giving rise to a risk of harm to service users.
83. Ms Dixon further submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was a breach of fundamental tenets of the profession, that he had acted dishonestly and that his behaviour was likely to be repeated. She submitted that the Registrant had not demonstrated any insight, reflection or remediation and there was therefore a high risk of repetition. She further referred the Panel to the content of the Registrant’s communications with the HCPC in March 2026, which were in relation to this hearing, as an example of continuing inappropriate comments:
“Stop messaging me with your little problems.
I really dont care.”
84. Ms Dixon also referred the Panel to the Caution Order imposed in 2015 and submitted that the Registrant had shown a pattern of behaviour.
85. Ms Dixon referred the Panel to paragraph 15 of the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment and the various factors identified in it relating to the assessment of the seriousness. She submitted that the Registrant’s behaviour:
• was a serious departure from expected professional standards;
• had impacted on public confidence in the profession;
• gave rise to a risk of harm;
• was not isolated;
• included acting dishonestly; and
• had not demonstrated any insight, reflection or remediation.
86. Ms Dixon submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired both in respect of the personal and public component.
87. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment and the cases of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 and Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin).
Panel decision on Impairment
88. The Panel determined that that the Registrant’s conduct found proved was serious and wide ranging, involving making inappropriate comments, deliberately providing inaccurate information to a Regulator and dishonesty. The Panel also took into account the Registrant’s conduct that gave rise to the imposition of a Caution Order in 2015.
89. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct constituted a pattern of behaviour and was not isolated. The inappropriate comments set out in Particular 1 took place on three occasions to three different colleagues over a period of around three months.
90. The Panel determined that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate any insight or remediation. It took into account the terms of his communication with the HCPC in March 2026 and considered this was indicative of the risk of repetition in relation to the making of inappropriate comments. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct in making inappropriate comments was attitudinal and potentially could be reflected in his interactions with service users with a potential consequent risk of emotional and other harm.
91. The Panel also considered that such behaviour could adversely affect relationships between colleagues, specifically the Registrant and those he was required to work with closely, resulting in potential risk to service users. This could include colleagues of the Registrant feeling uncomfortable or distracted from their work because they had been on the receiving end of his inappropriate behaviour. This in turn may reduce the quality of their work which could ultimately result in harm to service users.
92. The Panel further determined that the Registrant had deliberately provided the MRTB with inaccurate information as part of his application for restoration to the register. This resulted in the MRTB not having all relevant information before it in respect of the Registrant’s character and fitness to practise. The Panel determined that this again gave rise to a potential risk to service users if the Registrant had been restored to the Register.
93. The Panel first addressed the matter of the ‘personal component’ of the Registrant’s current fitness to practise. As set out above, the Panel determined that the Registrant conduct was premediated and in respect of his inappropriate comments not an isolated incident. The Panel concluded that both the Registrant’s conduct in making inappropriate comments and acting dishonestly were remediable. However, the Panel determined that the Registrant had not demonstrated any insight into the nature and extent of his misconduct and the potential consequences of on services users, colleagues and the reputation of the profession and the HCPC as a regulator. There therefore remained a real risk of repetition.
94. The Panel determined that the there is a likelihood of the Registrant repeating his misconduct. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant was currently impaired in relation to the personal component.
95. The Panel went on to consider the wider public interest and the public component of the Registrant’s current fitness to practise. The Panel has determined that the Registrant has made inappropriate comments, withheld information from a regulator and acted dishonestly. The Registrant’s misconduct gave rise to a risk to service users and colleagues. The Registrant has failed to demonstrate any insight or remediation. Given the Panel’s conclusion in respect of insight, remediation and risk of repetition the Panel determined that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant was currently impaired in relation to the public component.
96. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired both in respect of the personal and public components.
Decision on Sanction:
Submissions on Sanction
97. Ms Dixon referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanction Policy of March 2026. She explained that the HCPC made no positive suggestion on sanction but highlighted certain matters the Panel might care to consider.
98. Ms Dixon further advised the Panel that the Registrant was currently subject to an Interim Suspension Order in relation to separate regulatory concerns arising at Gateshead NHS Foundation Trust and had indicated that he had not practised since October 2024.
99. In relation to mitigatory factors, Ms Dixon suggested the Panel might take the view that the Registrant’s conduct had not given rise to any actual harm. In respect of aggravating factors, she suggested the Panel might consider these might include:
• Risk of repetition of unacceptable behaviour;
• Lack of insight;
• Lack of engagement with the regulatory process;
• No reflection;
• The Registrant’s communication with the HCPC indicates that he does not recognise the seriousness of this regulatory process; and
• Lack of remediation.
100. Ms Dixon submitted that whilst the dishonesty related to a single act, the Registrant had deliberately withheld information relevant to his restoration application which could have resulted in his restoration without consideration of all relevant matters.
101. Ms Dixon took the Panel through each sanction available to it.
Panel decision on Sanction
102. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. He referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy of March 2026.
103. The Panel bore in mind that the decision to impose a sanction is a matter for its own independent judgment, and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and uphold the wider public interest. Furthermore, any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order that the Panel makes is the least restrictive order that would protect the public and address the public interest. Any impact on the Registrant must not be disproportionate when considering the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest.
104. The Panel was unable to identify any mitigating factors. It noted Ms Dixon’s submission that no actual harm was caused to service users, but reminded itself of its conclusions at the impairment stage that:
'The Panel determined that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate any insight or remediation. It took into account the terms of his communication with the HCPC in March 2026 and considered this was indicative of the risk of repetition in relation to the making of inappropriate comments. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct in making inappropriate comments was attitudinal and potentially could be reflected in his interactions with service users with a potential consequent risk of emotional and other harm.
The Panel also considered that such behaviour could adversely affect relationships between colleagues, specifically the Registrant and those he was required to work with closely, resulting in potential risk to service users. This could include colleagues of the Registrant feeling uncomfortable or distracted from their work because they had been on the receiving end of his inappropriate behaviour. This in turn may reduce the quality of their work which could ultimately result in harm to service users.
The Panel further determined that the Registrant had deliberately provided the MRTB with inaccurate information as part of his application for restoration to the register. This resulted in the MRTB not having all relevant information before it in respect of the Registrant’s character and fitness to practise. The Panel determined that this again gave rise to a potential risk to service users if the Registrant had been restored to the Register’.
105. Given these conclusions, the Panel did not accept Ms Dixon’s suggestions regarding potential mitigating factors.
106. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
• Lack of engagement;
• Potential for harm;
• No demonstration of insight or remediation;
• The Registrant’s use of unacceptable comments constituted a pattern of behaviour, particularly in light of the Caution Order of 2015 and his communication with the HCPC in March 2026;
• The Registrant’s dishonesty involved deliberate withholding of information relevant to consideration of his fitness to practise and restoration application.
107. The Panel determined that the Registrant’s misconduct when considered in totality was at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness. It noted the Sanctions Policy in relation to dishonesty that states:
87. The standards of conduct, performance and ethics require registrants to be honest and trustworthy (standard 9). Dishonesty undermines public confidence in the profession and can, in some cases, impact the public’s safety.
88. Dishonesty, both in and outside the workplace, can have a significant impact on the trust placed in those who have been dishonest, and potentially on public safety and the profession generally. It is likely to lead to more restrictive sanctions. When considering cases where dishonesty is present, panels should consider the HCPTS Practice Note on Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind.
89. Given the seriousness of dishonesty, cases are likely to result in more restrictive sanctions. However, panels should bear in mind that there are different forms and different degrees of dishonesty that need to be considered in an appropriately nuanced way. Factors that panels should take into account in this regard include (this list in not exhaustive):
• whether the conduct took the form of a single act, or occurred on multiple occasions;
• the duration of any dishonesty;
• the nature of the dishonesty;
• the actual or potential impact of the dishonesty;
• whether the registrant took a passive or active role in it;
• any other relevant aggravating factors; and
• any other relevant mitigating factors.’
108. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was a deliberate attempt to withhold information that could have adversely affected his restoration application and had the potential to give rise to a risk of harm to service users.
109. The Panel further determined that the Registrant’s inappropriate communication constituted a pattern of behaviour both in relation to the conduct detailed in the particulars, but also historically as reflected by the Caution Order and continuing as reflected by his communication with the HCPC in March 2026.
110. The Registrant has not engaged with the regulatory process or attended this hearing. He has not demonstrated any insight into the full nature of the misconduct found proved and its potential effect on service users, colleagues and the reputation of both the profession and the HCPC as a regulator.
111. The Panel first considered taking no action. The Panel concluded that, in view of the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct, the risk of repetition and potentiality for harm it would be inappropriate to take no action. It would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain public confidence and uphold the reputation of the profession.
112. The Panel then considered a Caution Order. The Registrant’s misconduct was not minor in nature, it was not an isolated event, and there is a real risk of repetition. Furthermore, the Registrant has not demonstrated that he has taken any of the steps required to address that misconduct. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a Caution Order would be inappropriate and insufficient to protect the public and meet the public interest.
113. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel took into account that the Registrant has not attended this hearing and has not engaged during the life of the regulatory proceedings. As such, there was no suggestion that the Registrant would comply with any conditions. In addition, despite having received a Caution Order in 2014 the registrant had repeated similar behaviour in relation to inappropriate communication. This suggested that the Registrant did not embed the Caution Order or sufficiently change his practice, which caused the Panel to have concerns that conditions would not be effective in managing the risks in this case. Further, the dishonesty demonstrated an attitudinal issue in his behaviour, as did his repetition of use of inappropriate communication. The Panel considered that it would be impossible to formulate conditions to safeguard against the attitudinal issues in this case. The Panel therefore concluded that conditions would be unworkable and neither sufficient to protect the public, nor sufficient to address the public interest concerns.
114. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel took the view that, in light of the Registrant’s absence from the regulatory proceedings, and his lack of insight and remediation, he is either unable or unwilling to resolve his failings. There was a pattern of attitudinal behaviour which gave rise to a real risk of harm to service users. There was no evidence before the Panel to suggest that a period of suspension would result in any progress in the demonstration of the required insight and reflection and thus a reduction of risk to service users. These matters, together with the ongoing real risk of repetition, led the Panel to conclude that Suspension would not be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public or uphold the wider public interest.
115. Taken together, all of the factors set out above led the Panel to decide that, in light of the nature and gravity of the concerns, coupled with the real risk of repetition, Striking Off was the only way in which the public could be protected, and the only way in which the wider public interest could be upheld in terms of maintaining proper standards of professional conduct and behaviour, and upholding confidence in the profession. The Panel was also of the view that any lesser sanction would lack a deterrent effect. In coming to this decision, the Panel was particularly mindful of its findings set out above in relation to the seriousness of the dishonesty, and the potential harmful impact of it on public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator. The Registrant’s dishonesty struck at the heart of the honesty and integrity required of a registered Radiographer.
116. In coming to its decision, the Panel took into account the principle of proportionality, and the potential impact that such a sanction will have on the Registrant’s right to practise his profession, as well as potential reputational and financial impact. However, the Panel decided that the need to protect the public and uphold the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests in this regard.
117. The Panel therefore decided to impose a Striking Off Order.
Order
The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Kyle Harris from the Register on the day this Order comes into effect.
Notes
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 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
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Kyle Harris
| Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28/09/2026 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |