Mr Suhayb Firouz

SUMMARY
Decision of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal, sitting as the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council.

Facts proved:1
Facts not proved: n/a
Grounds: Conviction
Fitness to Practise Impaired: Yes
Sanction: Strike Off order + Interim Suspension Order 18 Months

Original Allegation
The following Allegation was considered by a panel of theConduct and Competence Committee at a Substantive Hearing on 8 – 9 April 2024.
As a registered Radiographer (RA79024):
1. On 8 December 2022 you were convicted at Leicester Crown Court of Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to Section 76 (1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

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

Application to amend particulars

1.The Panel heard an application made by Mr Moran, representing the HCPC, to amend the wording of particulars.
2. The proposed amendment was to add words to the end of Particular 2 to explicitly state the ground of impairment as follows:

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

3. Mr Moran relied upon the case summary dated 2 April 2024. Within this, he had submitted that the proposed amendment is for the purpose of clarity and completeness, and to explicitly state the ground of impairment.

4. The Registrant confirmed he was in agreement with the application to amend the particulars.

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

6. The Panel noted that the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’)were silent on amendments in such circumstances; the key question was one of fairness.

7. The Panel was of the view that the proposed amendment was in the interest of justice and would also assist in providing greater clarity. The amendment was minor and the change was proportional to the issues to be considered. The Registrant had agreed the proposed amendment. The Panel was satisfied that there would be no prejudice to the Registrant and no injustice would be caused to either party by the proposed amendment being allowed.

8. The Panel acceded to the application and allowed the amendment. The amended allegation was now as follows:

As a registered Radiographer (RA79024):
1. On 8 December 2022 you were convicted at Leicester Crown Court of Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to Section 76 (1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
2. By reason of the matter set out above, your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your conviction.

Application to proceed in private
9. The Registrant made an application for these proceedings to be held partly in private on the grounds of his private life given the references to his health within his bundle. Mr Moran, for the HCPC, confirmed he did not oppose the application.

10. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered the principle of open justice and had regard to the HCPTS Practice note “Conducting Hearings in Private”. There were two broad circumstances in which all or part of the hearing may be in private:
• where it was in the interest of justice to do so; or
• where it is done to protect the private life of the registrant, complainant, witness or service user.

11. The Panel determined that part of the hearing would be in private, in order to protect the private life of the Registrant, specifically in relation to the health matters. The Panel was satisfied that the rest of the hearing could proceed in public.

Background
12. The Registrant worked as a locum Radiographer via an agency.

13. On 5 January 2023 the Registrant submitted a self-referral to the HCPC in which he indicated that he had pleaded guilty to a criminal offence. He mentioned that he had not been working and the charge related to a domestic violence matter. At the time of the self-referral he had not been sentenced as this took place on the following day, on 6 January 2023.

14. A Certificate of Conviction dated 21 February 2023 was obtained by the HCPC from the Leicester Crown Court which confirmed that the Registrant had been convicted on 8 December 2022 of the offence described in Particular 1.

15. On 6 January 2023, the Crown Court sentenced the Registrant and ordered as follows:
• Two years imprisonment;
• Restraining Order (Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S5) for four years; and
• Victim surcharge of £140.

16. Within the sentencing transcript from the Court, the Judge made reference to the Registrant’s profession. The Judge stated that the Registrant ought to have understood his wife’s vulnerabilities.

The Hearing
17. Upon the allegation being read out, the Appellant accepted Particular 1.

18. The HCPC relied upon the Certificate of Conviction. Mr Moran relied upon his case summary as well as submissions made at the hearing.

19. No witness statements were submitted. The Registrant provided oral evidence in relation to impairment. The Registrant accepted the Allegation.

Decision on Facts:
20. Before making any findings on the facts, the Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has read the bundle from the HCPC and took account of the Registrant’s admission.

21. In reaching its decision on the facts, the Panel has borne in mind that the burden of proof rests on the HCPC and it is for the HCPC to prove the Allegation irrespective of any admissions made by the Registrant. The standard of proof is that applicable to civil proceedings, namely the balance of probabilities. The Panel has carefully considered the evidence in the round, giving appropriate weight to the documentary evidence.

22. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has no previous fitness to practise history.

Particular 1 - Proved
23. The HCPC obtained a Certificate of Conviction from Leicester Crown Court signed by a representative of the Court on 21 February 2023. This confirmed that the Registrant had pleaded guilty to ‘Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to Section 76 (1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015’ on 8 December 2022. The Certificate also confirmed that the Registrant was sentenced on 6 January 2023.

24. The fact of the Registrant’s conviction as alleged in Particular 1 is proved by the Certificate of Conviction. The Panel relied on Rule 10 (d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 states that “where a registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland an extract of conviction) shall be admissible as proof of the findings of fact upon which it was based.”

25. Further, the Panel noted that Particular 1 had been admitted by the Registrant at the hearing.

26. The Panel found Particular 1 to be proved.

Decision on Impairment:
27. The Registrant provided a two page bundle with documents to evidence that he was a trained Listener in prison and that an NHS assessment concluded that he had no mental health needs. He also provided six character references.

28. The Registrant gave oral evidence:
a) He expressed his remorse and regret. He accepted responsibility for his actions and explained the reason he was unable to plead guilty earlier was due to many more allegations being raised against him (than what was eventually pursued) and the delays with the barrister strike actions.
b) The Registrant stated that he had reflected at length in prison with regards to the impact on him and the victim and their families. He stated he had requested courses himself after these were suggested by his mentor and he had completed the Challenging Behaviours course and the Victim Awareness course in prison. He stated that he now recognises the triggers for his behaviour and has learned to prevent that from recurring. He felt the courses allowed him to understand the impact on the victim as well as the ripple effects on his family, friends and colleagues. He explained that the records were on the prison system and his Probation Officer had been unable to obtain these from the prison for him.
c) He stated he was unsure why he had reacted this way against his partner when he had been able to exercise self restraint when racially abused by patients in a work setting. He also stated that he did not appreciate the extent of the psychological harm on his partner until the victim impact statement had been read out in court. He stated that he had not had any contact with his partner for almost four years and is wanting to move forward.
d) The Registrant stated that he had never been in trouble before. He stated he had worked as a locum Radiographer via an agency and spent the longest period working at a hospital in Doncaster. He stated that his employer was not aware of his conviction and he had left on his own accord following his conviction.

29. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Moran on behalf of the HCPC. He referred to the relevance guidance. Mr Moran submitted little to no weight should be given to the six references as four were written before the sentencing hearing and the other two more recent references make no reference to the fitness to practise proceedings indicating that the authors were not aware of the proceedings. Mr Moran reminded the Panel that the Crown Court had imposed a custodial sentence. He also submitted that the Registrant did not accept the basis of the CPS case and he engaged in negotiations well into the proceedings before then pleading guilty. He submitted there was a lack of remediation as there was no evidence of the courses undertaken. Finally, he requested the Panel to focus on the public component of impairment.

30. The Registrant did not wish to add anything more to his evidence, save that he understood the impact his conviction could have on patients.

31. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

32. The Panel has approached its decision on impairment by looking at the situation as it is today.

33. The Panel’s primary objective is the protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

34. In reaching a decision on impairment, the Panel has considered all of the evidence and the submissions and has exercised its own judgment on impairment.

35. The Panel noted there was character evidence and oral evidence by the Registrant. The Panel did accept the Registrant had no previous regulatory findings against him.

36. By reason of his conviction, the Registrant was in breach of the following standards of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):
• Standard 9.1 - “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.” The Registrant had abused the public’s trust in him by reason of the offences and conviction.

37. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his conviction, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment referred to in the case of Grant. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Radiographer, 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.

38. With regard to the “personal” component of impairment, a guilty plea at the first opportunity would indicate greater insight.The Panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks that there was an absence of mitigation as the Registrant’s guilty plea was at a later stage after an indication of the sentence was refused by a judge. The self referral to the HCPC was also only made the day prior to the sentencing hearing.

39. The Panel considered there were attitudinal issues over a prolonged period as the Judge had cited at least four incidents over a period of time.

40. The Panel considered there was a risk to the public and the Panel was not convinced that the Registrant demonstrated sufficient insight. The Panel noted that the Registrant had accepted he never appreciated the psychological harm until the victim impact statement was read out in court and considered this demonstrated limited insight. Whilst the Registrant provided details of his courses in his oral evidence, the Panel noted there was a lack of documents and considered that there had been ample time to arrange the documents ahead of the hearing.

41. The Panel was not persuaded that the behaviour leading to the conviction is highly unlikely to be repeated. The Panel considered the Registrant’s reflections to be limited. It was noted that the Registrant stated he was unsure of why he had let his anger get the better of him, which is at odds with having completed the courses where he should have been expected to have developed such insight. His reflections were also limited to himself and there was insufficient evidence on the consideration of the impact on the profession, patients and the public.

42. The Panel were unable to place weight on the references as only two references were provided after the sentencing hearing, and there was no evidence within them of the authors being aware of the Allegation. The Registrant had failed to be open with the referees. The Registrant had also failed to inform his employers about his conviction.

43. The Panel therefore found the Registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired having regard to the “personal” component.

44. The Panel also found the “public” component of impairment to be satisfied in this case. A member of the public would be extremely concerned if a Radiographer convicted of controlling and coercive behaviour of his partner was permitted to continue in practice without restriction. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant poses a potential risk to members of the public and a finding of current impairment is necessary for public protection.

45. In addition, the Panel considered that a finding of current impairment is necessary to uphold professional standards. Public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its Regulator would be seriously undermined if there were no finding of impairment given the gravity of the conviction.

46. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired having regard to both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment.

Decision on Sanction:
47. The Panel heard submissions from Mr Moran and in reaching a decision on the sanction it has taken these submissions into account. Mr Moran submitted that this case was serious due to the criminal conviction for a serious offence and the violence involved. Having considered the Panel’s finding, Mr Moran submitted that there had been limited insight and a risk of repetition. He did not make any specific submissions on sanction and referred the Panel to the Sanctions Policy, specifically paragraph 130-131, whereby the Panel were invited to consider whether any of the criteria for a Strike-Off were present.

48. The Registrant had an opportunity to consider the sanctions guidance in advance. He accepted the decision on impairment and had no additional submissions to make.

49. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and has reached its decision on sanction by following the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy.

50. The Panel has had regard to all the evidence presented. It reminded itself that a sanction is not intended to be punitive although it may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality and that a sanction must be reasonable and the least restrictive possible.

51. The primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk which the Registrant may pose to patients and to the wider public interest; namely the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

52. 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.

53. The Panel noted the conviction and the details of violence within the sentencing remarks, which included punching, hitting with the hand, pushing, shoving and strangulation. The Panel considered the specific guidance on ‘Violence’ within the HCPC’s Sanction Policy:
‘93. Registrants have a duty to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession (see standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics). Where a registrant has exhibited violent behaviour, this is highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in their profession and pose a risk to the public. In these cases, a more serious sanction may be warranted.’

54. The Panel began its deliberations on sanction by considering the mitigating factors. The Registrant has not been subject to any previous fitness to practise proceedings. The Registrant had also engaged with the regulatory process and expressed some remorse. There was a guilty plea, although this was certainly not on the first available opportunity (as found by the judge).

55. The Panel then considered the aggravating factors and considered there had been a criminal conviction in relation to offences relating to violence against a vulnerable individual (as found by the judge). The Panel had already found there remained a risk of repetition and limited insight had been displayed. There was limited evidence available to the Panel of remediation and reflection.

56. The Registrant’s actions had led to a conviction by the criminal court and he had been sentenced to two years imprisonment. The Panel noted the sentence was not complete as the Registrant was out on licence and he had a Restraining Order against him for four years. The Panel considered the specific guidance on ‘Violence’ within the HCPC’s Sanction Policy:
’82. Where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the panel should not allow the registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed.’

57. The Panel next considered the sanctions in ascending order of gravity.

58. It has found that it is not appropriate to make No Order because of the serious nature of the incident.

59. A Caution Order is not appropriate because the conduct found proved was too serious for a Caution Order to be appropriate. The behaviour leading to the conviction was of a serious nature, there was limited evidence of insight, there is a risk of repetition and there was limited evidence of remediation.

60. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. The Panel did not consider conditions as appropriate for violent offences. There had been insufficient insight displayed. There were no workable conditions that could be formulated in this specific case which would address the concerns. The conviction was for a serious offence and there was a risk of repetition. In the circumstances the Panel determined that the Registrant’s actions were too serious for a Conditions of Practice Order to be appropriate.

61. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel noted suspension was not appropriate where there is a lack of sufficient insight and there remained a risk of repetition. The Panel considered there was a lack of insight, an absence of sufficient remediation and there remained a risk of repetition. This was a very serious offence involving strangulation, the violence had continued over a period of time and an imprisonment sentence for 2 years had been imposed, and the Registrant is subject to a restraining order for 4 years. The Panel considered it was not in the interest of the public for there to be a Suspension in such circumstances.

62. Finally, the Panel considered a Striking Off Order, which was the remaining option open to the Panel. The Panel was fully aware that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate, or reckless acts involving criminal convictions. The Panel was satisfied that given the circumstances of this case a Striking Off Order was necessary and appropriate. There had been limited insight shown into the criminal behaviour of the Registrant and the Panel remained concerned of the high risk of repetition.

63. The Panel was satisfied that due to the nature and gravity of the concerns that any lesser sanction other than a Striking Off Order would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. The conviction was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the HCPC register.

64. The Panel was satisfied that a Striking Off Order was the most appropriate sanction, having considered lesser sanctions before arriving at this order.

Order:
That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Shuayb Firouz from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Application for an Interim Order
Application for an Interim Suspension Order:
1. The Panel heard an application from Mr Moran to cover the appeal period by imposing an Interim Suspension Order on the Registrant’s registration. Mr Moran submitted that given the Panel’s findings, the HCPC seek an Interim Order to cover the appeal period for 18 months.

2. The Registrant agreed to the application.

Panel decision on an Interim Order:
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had careful regard to Paragraphs 133-135 of the Sanction Policy and to Paragraph 3.4 of the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, which offer guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed.

4. The Panel recognised that its powers to impose an interim order are discretionary and that imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Striking Off Order has been imposed. The Panel took into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant.

5. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001. It has had regard to the nature and gravity of the conduct it has found proved. The Panel was satisfied on the basis and requirement of an Interim Order given the facts found proved. In the judgment of the Panel, the risk of repetition identified in the substantive decision and the associated risk of harm that could result from repetition mean that an Interim Order is necessary to protect members of the public. It is also required in the wider public interest. The Panel was in no doubt that public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be seriously undermined were the Registrant allowed to remain in practice as a Radiographer during the appeal period.

6. The Panel first considered whether an Interim Conditions of Practice order should be imposed. The Panel had already determined that there were no workable conditions relevant to this case and this remained true now. Accordingly, the Panel determined the only appropriate interim order is an Interim Suspension Order.

7. The period of the Interim Suspension Order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.

8. If no appeal is made, then the Interim Order will be replaced by the Striking Off Order 28 days after the Registrant is sent the decision of this hearing in writing.

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 an Order) the final determination of that appeal; subject to a maximum of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Mr Suhayb Firouz