James Bugg

Profession: Operating department practitioner
Registration Number: ODP34288
Hearing Type: Final Hearing
Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 17/03/2025 End: 17:00 17/03/2025
Location: Held via video cobference
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 Finding Order Notes Hearing History

Allegation

As a registered Operating department practitioner (ODP34288):

  1. On 5 February 2024 you were convicted at Northampton Crown Court of 3 counts of making “indecent photograph/pseudo photograph of a child.”

2. By reason of the matters set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction.

Finding

Preliminary Matters
Hearing in private
1. By his email to the HCPC dated 23 February 2025, the Registrant referred to a number of health conditions from which he is currently suffering.
 
2. Ms Girven made an application that any reference to the Registrant’s health or private life should be referred to in private.
 
 
3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted the references made by the Registrant to his health problems and the Panel determined that any such matters should be heard in private.
 
Background 
4. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as an Operating Department Practitioner and at the material time was employed as a Band 6 Operating Department Practitioner by Northampton General Hospital.
 
5. The Registrant was referred to the HCPC by Northamptonshire Police following his arrest on 12 December 2019 on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
 
6. A referral form was also completed by his employer, Northampton General Hospital following his arrest. 
 
7. On 5 February 2025 the Registrant was convicted, following his Not Guilty plea, at Northampton Crown Court.
8. The Registrant was sentenced on 25 March 2024 to the following: 
• 12-month Community Order consisting of 30 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement 
• Deprived of the laptop 
• Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 5 years 
• Notification Requirement for 5 years 
• Surcharge of £90
 
9. The sentencing remarks of HHJ Crane outlined further background to the offences. They state that the Registrant was convicted of three offences in relation to indecent photographs of children relating to five Category A images, 14 Category B images and 270 Category C images. 
 
 
Decision on facts and grounds
10. Rule 10(1)(d), sets out that where a Registrant is convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the Certificate of Conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based The Panel was satisfied by the copy of the certificate of conviction that the facts set out in Particular 1 of the Allegation were proved.
 
Decision on Impairment
11. The Panel took into account the written submissions of Ms Girven to the effect that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired having regard to both personal and public components of impairment.
 
12. The Registrant acknowledged that his fitness to practise was impaired and that the public would be “horrified” if a registrant convicted of such serious criminal offences should remain on the register.
 
13. The Panel applied the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
 
14. The Panel noted that by reason of the offences of which he was convicted the Registrant was in breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016), which states that “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust in you and your profession”.
 
15. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel took into account both the personal and public components respectively. The personal component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Operating Department Practitoner, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The public component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.
 
16. With regard to the personal element of impairment, the Panel noted that the Registrant had pleaded not guilty to the offences. The sentencing judge, however, commented upon his positive good character and was impressed by the supportive references submitted to the court. 
 
17. The Panel noted that the offences of which the Registrant were committed outside his work. 
 
18. However, the Panel considered the following matters were indicative of the Registrant’s fitness to practise being impaired with regard to the personal component:
• Notwithstanding his conviction, the Registrant denied intending to download and access the indecent images; he thereby demonstrated very limited, if any, insight with regard to the commission of these very serious offences;
• The offences of which the Registrant was convicted were attitudinal in nature;
• In all the circumstances, there remained, in the Panel’s judgement, a risk of repetition.
 
19. In light of the above matters, the Panel considered the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired with regard to the personal component.
 
20. With regard to the public component, the Panel considered the Registrant to present a risk to the public, having regard to the very serious nature of his offences, which involved the exploitation of children for the purpose of sexual gratification. The Panel noted that the indecent images included children of a very young age, including a baby. 
 
21. The Panel also took into account the responsibility of the HCPC to uphold proper standards of conduct on the part of members of the profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel considered that, given the serious nature of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted, public confidence in the profession and in the Regulator would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Operating Department Practitoner is impaired by reason of his conviction.
 
Decision on Sanction
22. Ms Girven did not invite the Panel to impose any particular sanction but drew the Panel’s attention to paragraphs in the Sanctions Policy concerning offences relating to indecent images of children. She also referred the Panel to the case of Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v GDC v Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87, where it was stated at paragraph 54 that “I am satisfied that, as a general principle, where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal offence or offences he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence. Only circumstances which plainly justify a different course should permit otherwise.” 
 
23. By email to the HCPC dated 23 February 2025, the Registrant provided written submissions in which he set out his position. He recognises that he will “never practice again”. The Registrant has also provided details about his mental and physical health and he concludes by stating that “It has to be realised that the above health conditions lead me to feel that I have no realistic chance of returning to practice, even with the guilty verdict I would expect the HCPC to remove my name from the register based on being unfit to carry out duties safely. I would agree, I would not be able to safely practice and would expect a member of the public to be horrified to be treated by someone with such a history.”. 
 
24. The Registrant in his oral submissions invited the Panel to impose a Striking Off Order on the basis that no other sanction would be appropriate.
 
25. The Panel had regard to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest by declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct on the part of registrants and maintaining public confidence in the profession and the Regulator. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.
 
26. The mitigating factors are the Registrant acknowledged that his fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his conviction and that the seriousness of the offences merited a Striking Off Order. He thereby demonstrated some insight.
 
27. Set against the mitigating factors referred to above, the Panel noted and endorsed the following guidance at paragraph 89 of the Sanctions Guidance: 
“Any offence relating to indecent images of children involves some degree of exploitation of a child, and so a conviction for such an offence is a very serious matter. In particular, it undermines the public’s trust in registrants and public confidence in the profession concerned and is likely to lead to a more serious sanction”
 
28. The Registrant’s conviction is too serious for the Panel to take no further action or to impose a Caution Order.
 
29. The Panel considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be appropriate but noted paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy, which states:
“Conditions are … less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving ….. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children.”
 
30. The Panel was unable to formulate conditions of practice which would be relevant or appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offences of which the Registrant was convicted. In any event, the Registrant has consistently stated that he has no intention of returning to practice and wishes to be removed from the Register.
 
31. The Panel considered the criteria for imposing a Suspension Order but concluded that the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be fundamentally incompatible with his remaining on the Register. 
 
32. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states: 
“A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving …. sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children”
 
33. Paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy states:
“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process”.
 
34. The Panel was drawn to the conclusion that the only appropriate sanction was a Striking Off Order.

 

Order

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr James Bugg from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

Right of Appeal:
You may appeal to the appropriate court against the decision of the Panel and the Order it has made against you. In this case the appropriate court is the High Court in England and Wales.


Under Articles 29 and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001, an appeal must be made to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you. The Order made against you will not take effect until that appeal period has expired or, if you appeal during that period, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.


Interim Order
1. Ms Girven made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined.


2. The Registrant made no submissions to the contrary.


3. The Panel noted Ms Girven’s submissions and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.


4. Given the Panel’s finding that the offences of which the Registrant was convicted are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent not to impose some form of Interim Order. The Panel, for the same reasons it identified above, came to the conclusion that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.


5. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary for the protection of members of the public and otherwise in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.


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 bemade; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal. This Interim Suspension Order is made for the maximum period of 18 months.

 

Hearing History

History of Hearings for James Bugg

Date Panel Hearing type Outcomes / Status
17/03/2025 Conduct and Competence Committee Final Hearing Struck off
;