Charles Jimingo

Preliminary Matters

Private

1. The Panel was advised that information regarding one of the witness’s private and family matters may arise during application to admit his evidence as hearsay. Having taken advice from the Legal Assessor as to the interests of justice and the importance of the open justice principle, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate in the circumstances to hear the application to admit hearsay in private in order to protect the witness’s right to privacy.

Hearsay Application

2. In Private
3. In Private
4. In Private
5. In Private
6. In Private
7. In Private

8. The application was refused.

9. The Allegation was read and the Registrant admitted the facts of Particulars 2 a), and 2 d) but only as to the alleged words and acts, not as to breach of professional boundaries or the alleged lack of consent alleged in 2 (d).

10. The HCPC have three witnesses:-

• Colleague A, Occupational Therapist (Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.)
• Colleague C, Occupational Therapist Acute Medical Unit (Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.)
• Daniel Blythe, General Manager, Cancer, Haematology and Oncology, (Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.)

Background

11. Charles Jimingo, the Registrant, was employed as an Occupational Therapist (OT) by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (“the Trust”) between mid to late October 2021 and November/December 2021. During his employment, he was based at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich.

12. On 12 November 2021, a formal complaint was made about his conduct towards Colleague A. In this complaint Colleague A alleged that whilst at work, the Registrant had made inappropriate comments to her. These comments included, but were not limited to, stating: “your eyes are very tempting” and “don’t worry about your weight, you look fine.”

13. In addition to these comments, it is also alleged that the Registrant removed his wedding ring and tried to place this ring on several of Colleague A’s fingers.

14. The Trust commenced an internal investigation. However, the Registrant resigned on 8 December 2021, before the disciplinary process had concluded.

15. During the investigation, it is alleged that when the Registrant was questioned about the wedding ring incident, he allegedly gave an account which he knew to be incorrect and which differed materially to the depiction of the incident on CCTV footage.

16. After the Registrant left his role at the Trust, he obtained another role in which he was employed as a Band 6 Occupational Therapist at Livingstone Community Hospital by Virgin Care.

17. A referral form was submitted to the HCPC by Ms Leanne Hunt (Occupational Therapy Lead, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust) on 9 February 2022. This referral form summarised many of the alleged incidents.

18. Following receipt of this referral form, the HCPC commenced an investigation. During the course of this investigation, the HCPC interviewed Colleague C. During this interview, Colleague C alleged that the Registrant made inappropriate comments about her appearance such as the fact that he found her attractive.

Witness 1 - Colleague A

19. Colleague A affirmed and adopted her witness statement as her evidence. She was a Band 5 OT at the Trust and worked with the Registrant at the relevant time. She told the Panel about the alleged incidents.

20. Colleague A said that she did not know the Registrant before working with him in October 2021 and did not socialise with him before or after the incidents. She stated that on 09 November 2021 she was on an 08:00 – 16:00 shift. During the morning, she said she had been sitting at the reception desk preparing to see her patients. The Registrant had approached her and sat on the desk to the right of her, as there were no chairs for him to sit on.

21. Colleague A said that the Registrant then started to ask her questions about her personal life, her love life and children. At this point, the Registrant asked if she was uncomfortable, and she had said “no” as she assumed that he was just trying to get to know her. She said that the Registrant then took his wedding ring off his finger, and tried to put it on her ring and middle finger as her right hand was on the computer mouse.

22. Colleague A said that the Registrant placed his ring on her finger as he "just wanted to see something". She had moved her hand away and said: "it would never fit, I have small hands". She had said this as she felt that if she laughed off the situation the Registrant would move onto another topic of conversation, and he would stop trying to put the ring on her finger. She said she did not consent to the ring being put on her, and did not ask the Registrant to do so.

23. Colleague A said that although she found the Registrant’s questions strange, she did not feel uncomfortable with him asking them. However, when he put his ring on her finger she said it seemed to her that the Registrant was not respecting her personal boundaries with his questions, or his actions. She said that she had “especially found this weird” and she had felt “really uncomfortable.” She said he was flirting with her. She said that no other male colleagues behaved in this way.

24. Colleague A was referred to the CCTV screenshots and confirmed that they showed the Registrant talking to her at her desk and sitting on the desk next to her. She said that you were not actually allowed to sit on the desks.

25. Colleague A said that in the afternoon, the Registrant had abruptly stopped her in the office during the shift handover and commented about how light her eyes were. She said she had replied "yes, they are hazel", and then continued with the handover. He then interrupted her a second time stating: "your eyes are very tempting". She had said “ok” and continued with the handover and did not engage in the conversation. She said that when she had completed the handover, she walked away to prevent the Registrant saying anything further.

26. Colleague A said that this comment had immediately made her feel uncomfortable as she felt that the Registrant had, again, not respected her personal boundaries, especially following the incident earlier that day. She said she had tried to change the conversation, but the Registrant had kept asking her questions.

27. Colleague A said that she felt that there was a sexual element to this comment due to the Registrant’s use of the word “tempting”. When she returned to the office to write up patient notes on the computer, she had sat on the other side of the office to try and avoid the Registrant. She said she had felt the Registrant’s conduct towards her had been “completely inappropriate.”

28. Later that same day, the Registrant had asked Colleague A what biscuits were her favourite, she had said Oreos. The Registrant has then offered her an Oreo and said, "how do we have the same favourite biscuits, wow". She had said that she was not hungry and that they had not discussed dieting or going to the gym. The Registrant had said to her: "don’t worry about your weight, you look fine", and told her to have a biscuit. Colleague A said she had ignored this comment, and she had turned back to the computer screen to continue writing up patient's notes.

29. Colleague A said that this comment had made her feel uncomfortable as she had felt that the Registrant had been looking at her body, and again she felt that there had been a sexual element to his comment as he was commenting upon how her body looked. She said that she had tried to avoid working with him as she had felt uncomfortable, particularly if she needed to turn away or bend over near him.

30. Colleague A said that later that day the Registrant had come over to her and leaned over her to write in the Ward book. She said that he had leaned over her when there was no need for him to do so. He had also mentioned “personal space” to her, but she had ignored him. She said that she had felt those comments were deliberate as he had known what he was doing in leaning over her, and that she would not say anything.

31. Colleague A said that on that day a male colleague had asked her how she was and she had told them about the Registrant’s conduct. He had encouraged her to report the matter saying that it was not right or professional for the Registrant to behave that way. On the days following, Colleague A said that she had been anxious, upset and down about the behaviour and had felt that she had let herself down. She said she was newly qualified and wanted to do a good job, but this incident had made her uncomfortable about going to work and she had trouble sleeping.

32. Colleague A said a male colleague had approached her during the day noticing she was “down” and she had confided in that colleague as she had known him for several years. Mr Hall later approached her about the incidents after she had asked for a change of shift to avoid the Registrant. She said that she had not reported matters immediately as she had put her patients first and it would have been unfair to colleagues to disrupt the shift.

33. Colleague A said she had reported the matter to her manager, Timothy Hall and it was then escalated. She said she felt this incident had made her lose a lot of confidence. She said it had made her feel “closed off” to male colleagues and anxious about who she was working with on shifts.

34. In cross examination, Colleague A said that the Registrant knew that she had not given consent to place the ring on her finger as she was facing away from him looking at the screen and the first she knew was when he touched her fingers when her hand was on the mouse pad. She denied offering her hand to him. She said he had not been aggressive or forceful. She said the Registrant had done it quickly and she had not felt confident enough to say anything to him. The Receptionist sitting next to her had been on the telephone and she would not have seen what he did.

35. Colleague A denied that the Registrant had just washed his hands and said that he had not discussed the ring with her. Colleague A reiterated that the Registrant had made the comment about her eyes when they were in the office. Colleague A said that in her written statement for her employer dated 9 November 2021 she had mentioned the Ward book and had not since then elaborated or embellished her account.

36. In Private

37. In respect of the investigation interview on 9 December 2021, Colleague A accepted that she had been encouraged to explore support services, but she had already been referred to OH by her manager. She was helped by colleagues to put things into perspective and she had then decided to report the matter to Mr Hall. She said that she had since become a Band 6 OT despite having lost confidence for some months due to these events.

Witness 2 – Daniel Blythe (DB)

38. DB is employed by the Trust as the General Manager for Cancer, Haematology and Oncology, and has been in this role since October 2022. He was asked to investigate the complaint by Colleague A about the Registrant. He adopted his written witness statement. He did not know or have any relationship with either of the parties. He only met the Registrant when he interviewed him and the Registrant had left shortly after the investigation.

39. DB told the Panel that he was asked by the Trust to investigate two allegations in relation to the Registrant related to the Trust’s values. These allegations were:

• On 9 November 2021, Charles Jimingo breached Trust Values with regards to treating a workplace colleague with respect and compassion.
• On 9 November 2021, Charles Jimingo failed to adhere to the Trust value of taking responsibility for our actions.

40. DB said that he had interviewed witnesses, gathered documentation and viewed the CCTV. He explained that he had broken down Colleague A’s complaint into four separate events, these four events both related to the two allegations. He said that the four events were:

1) The Registrant asked personal questions about Colleague A’s love life and work outside of work in an inappropriate manner.
2) Mr The Registrant placed his wedding ring on the Colleague A’s hand, touching her hand, without her consent.
3) The Registrant made inappropriate comments about Colleague A’s physical appearance.
4) The Registrant made intentional and unnecessary physical contact with Colleague A.

41. In relation to the first event, DB stated that the Registrant and Colleague A provided two conflicting accounts. Both had cooperated with the investigation and he interviewed both parties. The Registrant had denied asking Colleague A questions about her love life, or making any comments about her eyes or her weight. DB said that Colleague A had told him that the Registrant had said to her that her eyes were “very tempting”, he had commented "don’t worry about your weight, you look fine". Colleague A had said that the Registrant had placed his wedding ring on her finger without her consent. The Registrant said that he had placed the ring on Colleague A’s finger when she had offered her hand to him. The Registrant also said that it was not his wedding ring that he had used.

42. As regards the CCTV images, DB said he had done his best to extract the relevant parts of the CCTV images. The footage had been short and he said that he considered the key events were captured by the still images he had appended to his investigation report. DB said he felt that the CCTV evidence contradicted some of the Registrant’s account, and did not show him washing his hands.

43. DB explained that Colleague A also alleged that the Registrant sat unnecessarily close to her and had leaned over her to sign a book which she said could have been done at a further distance. Colleague A had stated to him that there was no reason why the Registrant could not have moved the patient book closer to him, and away from her. In the interview, Colleague A had confirmed to DB that the Registrant repeatedly made physical contact with her, and at times commented on their physical closeness. Colleague A had stated that she saw no practical reasons for the Registrant to stand so close to her. Consequently, Colleague A concluded that the Registrant could have only been so close to her to either make her feel uncomfortable, or to be flirtatious. The Registrant had said to DB he did not recall touching Colleague A in any inappropriate way, and stated that the size of the writing in the book was very small, and difficult to see. The Registrant had told DB that this was why he had moved so close to Colleague A and he had denied that he was intentionally close to her and contended that this was a necessary part of the job.

44. DB said the witness statements taken from Colleague A and the Registrant were typed up from the notes taken at the meeting and then sent to the witnesses for them to review and respond. He did not recall either witness making any comments about the typed record of the statements given to DB.

45. DB said that the Registrant had been very cooperative. He said that the Registrant’s written response differed from the version he had given DB at interview. When interviewed, DB said that the Registrant stated that his ring did not fall from his finger, and was not picked up, but was loose on the end of his hand. The Registrant had also clarified that the ring in question was not a wedding ring. DB said that the Registrant had not mentioned at the interview what he later said in his written statement where he had referred to washing his hands before the alleged incident with the ring. DB said that was not on the CCTV and was not what the Registrant had told him at the interview. DB said that that he recalled there were no discrepancies in Colleague A’s statements about the alleged events.

46. In cross examination, DB said that he had conducted several investigations and had received training in doing them. He explained that the Registrant’s explanations about the ring incident did not accord with what he saw on the CCTV record, particularly as to the hand washing the Registrant claimed had taken place, but DB accepted that he did not know exactly where the sink was in the ward and it was not visible on the CCTV.

47. DB accepted that when he interviewed the Registrant, the Registrant had not been fully aware of the extent of the allegations against him. He did not recall why other possible witnesses were not approached. Others were visible on the CCTV but DB said that other people were not present for much time. He reiterated that the Registrant had been helpful, had been very engaged and had assisted in the investigation.

48. In respect of the written statement from the Registrant on 18 November 2021, DB accepted that the Registrant had apologised and had said that he thought he was having a “laugh”. DB said that the Registrant had taken responsibility for some of his actions and he had apologised for upsetting Colleague A, but DB had felt that there had been a lack of accountability for his actions. DB did not recall that Colleague A provided any evidence of the harm caused to her other than what she had told him about the impact on her.

Witness 3 - Colleague C

49. Colleague C is a registered OT and worked at the Trust at the time of the allegation. She adopted her written witness statement and stated her married name. She told the Panel that she had worked with the Registrant frequently in 2021 but she had not previously known him or worked with the Registrant.

50. Colleague C said that the Registrant joined the team in about August/September 2021. She was a Band 7 OT in the Acute Medical Unit working with OTs and physiotherapists. She said he had been rotated to the team early as there had been concerns about the Registrant’s conduct, performance and behaviour. She said she had worked closely with the Registrant as he was on a management plan and was not to see patients on his own. He was under clinical supervision at that time as he was not performing well.

51. Colleague C told the Panel about the incident with the Registrant in October 2021 and the statement she had provided to her manager at the time stating the Registrant (CJ) “rotated into my team (Acute Medical Unit) in October 2021 within his second week he had made comments in regards to my appearance… reported that he had told his partner that he did not like that his band 7 was a woman and that he did not like to be supervised by a woman who was younger than him; at this time I had told him that I was not younger than him he then proceeded to state that I did not look my age. Following this he went on to state that he told his partner that he found me attractive. I told CJ that this statement was inappropriate and that I could not control what he said to his wife, I went on to tell CJ that this was not a topic that should be brought up in a work environment and that I did not appreciate this.”

52. Colleague C said these comments were made in the main office when they were at their computers. She said the Registrant had made her feel slightly uncomfortable. Colleague C had not asked him to comment on her appearance and it should not have done so. Colleague C said the Registrant often made “random” comments that made little sense. She had told the Registrant his comments were inappropriate. She said he appeared nonchalant and did not appear to take her seriously, he had smiled and “brushed it off”. He did not apologise or express any reflection or acknowledgment about the impact of his comments. No one else was involved in the conversation and she could not recall if others would have overheard the conversation.

53. Colleague C said the behaviour was inappropriate as it was a work setting and they did not know one another. Colleague C said that it was not professional to comment that she was attractive or to state what his partner thought of her.

54. The Registrant had also discussed his partner’s cooking and then brought food into work for Colleague C. She had not asked him to do so and she told him that his actions were inappropriate. She had asked him why he had cooked her lunch and he said that he wanted her to taste his cooking and said something like "even if you don’t eat it, I want you to have it". He had come specifically to her and offered her the food and she said it was all ”weird” and “confusing”. She did not see him bringing in food for any other colleagues. Colleague C had told him that this was inappropriate and he once again had just “shrugged this off”.

55. Colleague C stated that the following week some members of the team were discussing pay day and she had said that she could not wait to get paid. After this they had a joint session together, and before they had seen the patient the Registrant had said that if she needed money he could give her some. She told him that she did not need money from him and that again this was inappropriate.

56. Colleague C then reported matters to her Band 8 Lead OT who managed the whole OT team. She had asked Colleague C to document matters and write it down. Colleague C said that at that point she did not want to take it further. She then went on bereavement leave but she was aware that a formal investigation was undertaken. She never discussed the issues with Colleague A.

57. Colleague C said that all of this behaviour had all been very strange and it made her feel uncomfortable but the Registrant had remained very nonchalant and had “laughed it off”. He never apologised to her for his behaviour. Colleague C said the Registrant’s behaviour had been very strange and not professional. She did not think she had misinterpreted his behaviour and it had not been “jovial”. She had told him after the first comment that his behaviour was inappropriate, but he had continued.

58. In cross examination, Colleague C reiterated that at handover of the Registrant to her team, she had been told by his supervisor that he previously had some issues with this conduct and his practice. She said this handover was unusual as the Registrant was being rotated to her team early. The weekly supervision of the Registrant and the management plan continued until she went on bereavement leave in October 2021. She could not comment on what happened after she left. She explained that the Registrant remained on her team as she had not wanted to take the concerns further at that time.

59. Colleague C accepted that she had not raised the issues with the Registrant at supervision because she had, at the time of each incident, challenged him and told him that his behaviour was inappropriate. She reiterated that she had reported the three incidents to her manager and said that she had wanted to keep the Registrant’s behaviour under review before formalising her concerns. She confirmed that she had completed a written statement on 2 May 2022 for her manager whilst she was still on leave.

The Registrant’s Evidence

60. The Registrant adopted his written witness statement. He denied making any comments to Colleague C or to Colleague A about finding them attractive. He said that he had discussed cooking and food with Colleague C and that he had later offered Colleague C and other colleagues some food he had prepared. He said that Colleague C did not reprimand him or ask him not to do so again.

61. In his statement he stated that: “I try to be jovial and friendly with all my work colleagues. This is to ensure there is a healthy working relationship. I have admitted previously that I make jokes and banter with different work colleagues. However, I maintain I will not make inappropriate comments to any work colleague.”

62. The Registrant denied offering Colleague C any money and he said that Colleague C never raised the issues now alleged in his supervisions. He said no one told him that Colleague C was unhappy with his behaviour and he denied that Colleague C ever challenged him.

63. The Registrant denied making any comment to Colleague A about her eyes being “tempting” or asking questions about her love life. The Registrant said that he had placed a ring on Colleague A after washing his hands when they had discussed the size of his fingers and he said that Colleague A had tried on the ring, and they had “laughed” about it. He said that Colleague A had not said she was upset.

64. The Registrant said that he may have made a comment about Colleague A’s weight in the course of a conversation about diet and exercise. He said it was not sexual and it was part of a discussion at the table and he could not tell if she had been upset.

65. The Registrant said that he and Colleague A saw patients together and would then complete the wardbook together so they would have been physically close. He denied being deliberately in her personal space. The Registrant denied fabricating any part of the explanation about the ring incident. He said that in his later statement on 18 November 2021 he had apologised for upsetting Colleague A and said that he had thought they were having fun. He said he had subsequently done some training to reflect and he had completed courses on dignity and privacy, duty of candour and conflict resolution and was now “very mindful”.

66. In cross examination, the Registrant said he knew, and that he understood the HCPC professional standards and the Trust policy on treating colleagues with dignity and respect. He denied that he did not like receiving supervision from a woman and he denied being dismissive of feedback from female colleagues. He denied being “rotated” early to the role with Colleague A due performance issues, he denied having any issues in his previous role and denied that he had required supervision or was under a management plan. He denied “flirting” with Colleague A or Colleague C or trying to seduce them.

67. The Registrant denied that he was in breach of the social distancing rules in place at the time when he sat on the desk next to Colleague A and he denied that the CCTV screenshots show that was the case. He denied forcing a ring on Colleague A’s finger and said that Colleague A had offered her hand to him. He denied changing and fabricating his account of the ring incident. The Registrant denied invading Colleague A’s personal space when reaching for the wardbook. The Registrant said he had reflected and that he had attended courses, each several hours long.

68. In response to Panel questions, the Registrant said that he had made rice for Colleague C and when he gave it to her she had just said “thanks”, and he did not know whether she had eaten it. He also clarified that his ring had fallen on to the desk near Colleague A after he had washed his hands. On reflection, the Registrant said that the issue with the ring should have been avoided, as should the discussion about food. He said no one at the Trust has even raise issues with his conduct and performance. Since his training he said he had now knew better how to speak to colleagues and to be mindful of respect and dignity towards all colleagues.

Resumed Hearing 30 October 2024

69. The hearing resumed on Wednesday, 30 October 2024. Ms Bernard-Stevenson applied to amend Particular 2 c) of the allegation to split the two alleged actions and to make the “reached over” allegation into a new, separate sub-particular, 2 d). Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that this properly reflected the evidence heard and the chronology of the events. She submitted that this was a minor amendment. Mr Ezike advised that the amendment was not opposed.

70. Having accepted the legal advice on fairness and the interests of justice, the Panel decided that this was a minor amendment which properly reflected the evidence and it was fair and appropriate to allow the amendment.

Closing Submissions

71. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the onus rested on the HCPC on the balance of probabilities. She submitted that Colleague C’s evidence was credible and reliable as to the Registrant’s alleged conduct and that she had told him his conduct was inappropriate. Ms Bernard-Stevenson invited the Panel to find the allegation proved. She submitted that Colleague A’s evidence was clear and credible and her evidence was that she had found the Registrant’s conduct towards her both sexual and inappropriate.

72. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the account given by DB was credible and that the accounts submitted by the Registrant were not accurate and inconsistent. She reminded the Panel that sexual motivation can be inferred from acts and can be inferred from “flirtatious” acts. She submitted that the Registrant has been dishonest in giving differing accounts of the alleged incident about placing the ring on his colleague. She invited the Panel to find the whole allegation proved.

73. Mr Ezike, for the Registrant, submitted that the Registrant denied the alleged conduct. He submitted there was a lack of evidence of the comments made to Colleague C and that it was not likely that he would have discussed Colleague C with his wife and then repeat that to Colleague C. He submitted that there had been a culture of bringing food to the office and the Registrant had not brought food in only for Colleague A. The Registrant had been cordial and had maintained professional boundaries. Mr Ezike submitted that the conduct was not corroborated by any complaints or contemporaneous records of the alleged incidents. He asked the Panel to prefer the evidence of the Registrant and to accept his denial of the comments alleged.

74. Mr Ezike submitted that the HCPC had not discharged the burden of proof and there was no evidence to corroborate the alleged comments about Colleague A’s eyes. The Registrant had admitted making a comment about her weight but it took place in the context of a wider conversation about diet and exercise. The Registrant denied any comments about “love life” and Mr Ezike submitted that conversation had been about Colleague C’s career.

75. Mr Ezike submitted that the Registrant had been consistent in his account of the alleged incident and denied being too close to Colleague A. She had made no comment at the time and he submitted that there was a lack of evidence about that alleged incident. As regards the incident with the ring the Registrant has admitted placing the ring on Colleague A’s ring and denied it was done without consent. Mr Ezike said the CCTV still pictures did not support lack of consent, and it was implausible that consent was not given, especially given the proximity of another colleague.

76. Mr Ezike submitted that the Registrant is married and there was no evidence to corroborate the allegation of sexual motivation. The ring was not a wedding ring. He submitted that the Registrant’s accounts of the incident with the ring were consistent and had not been fabricated and the central issue about the ring had remained the same. He submitted that there had been no dishonesty and the Panel should find the allegation not proved.

Decision on the Facts

77. The Panel accepted that advice of the Legal Assessor as to the standard and onus of proof. He reminded the Panel of the guidance on the assessment of witnesses in the cases of Suddock v NMC 2015 EWHC 3612 (Admin) and Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin). He referred to Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 on the issue of dishonesty; and to Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) and Haris v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 763 on findings of sexual motivation. He gave the Registrant a good character direction.

Allegation Particular 1 – Proved

As a registered Occupational Therapist (OT82137) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct in that:

1) On or around October 2021, you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation Colleague C, in that you told Colleague C that you told your partner that ‘you find Colleague C attractive’, or words to that effect.

78. The Panel considered the evidence of Colleague C and the Registrant. The Panel noted that there were in evidence no contemporaneous records or notes of this matter. Colleague C was the Registrant’s supervisor. She said in her evidence that there were existing concerns about the Registrant’s conduct towards colleagues and that is supported in the Trust investigation records. Colleague C told the Panel that, as a result, the Registrant was on a management plan and he was not to see patients on his own.

79. Colleague C in her statement to the Trust investigation at the time said that the Registrant had said he did not like being supervised by a woman. Colleague C said that she was uncomfortable in the Registrant’s company, and on more than one occasion told him his conduct towards her was not appropriate.

80. The Panel found that her evidence about the alleged events was professional, clear, coherent and cogent and it found her account of the alleged incident to be credible and reliable. The Registrant denies saying what is alleged.

81. The Panel took account that Colleague A also reported similar concerns about the Registrant’s conduct and behaviour as is clear from her evidence and recorded in the Trust investigation. Colleagues A and C were not connected, they worked in different locations and did not know one another, although they had previously worked together briefly. The Panel found that nonetheless both witnesses reported conduct and behaviour of a very similar nature by the Registrant. The Panel found that this similar fact evidence supported, to some extent, the credibility and plausibility of both Colleague A and C’s evidence. There is no evidence that either colleague had any motivation to lie or bore any ill will towards the Registrant.

82. Considering the evidence as a whole, the Panel preferred the cogent evidence of Colleague C to the denial by the Registrant and it found this Particular proved. Further, the Panel found that this conduct was overly familiar and personal and was a breach of appropriate professional boundaries.

Allegation Particular 2 – Proved

2) On 9 November 2021, you did not maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Colleague A in that:

a. You said to Colleague A, ‘your eyes are very tempting’, or words to that effect.
b. You said to Colleague A, ‘don’t worry about your weight, you look fine’, or words to that effect.
c. You asked Colleague A about her love life.
d. You were too close and/or reached over your Colleague A when there was no need to.
e. You placed your ring on Colleague A’s hand and/or finger/s, without consent to do so.

83. The Panel took into account that the incidents alleged in Particular 2 took place on the same day with Colleague A. In order, the alleged ring incident happened before the eyes comment was made and before the comment about weight. The reaching over incident at 2 d) was the final incident. The Panel considered that these incidents were evidence of a pattern of behaviour by the Registrant towards Colleague A. It decided that as such, it would be artificial and inappropriate to consider each of these sub-particulars in isolation from the other. It considered the evidence of these sub-particulars in the round.

84. Particular 2 a) - The Panel considered the evidence of Colleague A. She was clear and consistent that this was said to her by the Registrant, as stated in her witness statement to the Trust investigation made shortly after the incident, and that evidence is highly consistent with her HCPC witness statement and her live evidence. The parties did not know each other before these incidents and this was the first time they had worked together. There was no evidence of ill will between her and the Registrant, and no evidence of any motivation for her to lie about this comment by the Registrant.

85. The Panel found the evidence of Colleague A to be cogent, credible and consistent and it preferred her evidence to the Registrant’s denial. It noted the word used was “tempting” which it found was flirtatious.

86. Particular 2 b) - Colleague A was clear about this incident in her witness statement and this was consistent with her live evidence and Trust witness statement. Colleague A said she found the comment made was sexual in nature as the Registrant was commenting on her body. The Registrant admitted the comment about her weight, but said it was said as part of a general conversation about going to the gym, diet and exercise. The Panel preferred the consistent, cogent evidence of Colleague A and found this was proved.

87. Particular 2 c) - Colleague A was clear in her witness statement to the investigation made shortly after the event that this comment was made, and this is consistent with her HCPC witness statement and in her live evidence. The Panel found her evidence to be cogent, consistent and credible and it preferred her evidence to the denial by the Registrant and found this proved.

88. Particular 2 d) - Colleague A was clear that this incident took place as alleged. She explained it clearly and said that the Registrant had been too close and there was no need to reach over her to get the book. He had commented at the time on how close he was to her. The Panel found her evidence about this incident was consistent in her witness statement to the Trust investigation, and consistent with her HCPC witness statement and her live evidence. The Panel found her evidence to be cogent and credible and it preferred her evidence to the denial by the Registrant, and found this proved.

89. Particular 2 e) - Colleague A was clear that this incident took place as alleged. She gave a consistent account and stated that she did not give him consent stating that when he put the ring on her finger “… it seemed to me that Mr Jimingo was not respecting my personal boundaries with his questions, or his actions. I especially found this weird”

90. The Registrant gave a detailed explanation about first washing his hands and the ring “slipping” from his finger. The Panel found that the Registrant’s account lacked plausibility and, in any event, how the ring came to be removed was not relevant. The Registrant accepted that he placed the ring on Colleague A's finger but he had obtained consent to do so. Colleague A was clear that she had not consented.

91. The Panel preferred the consistent, plausible and credible evidence of Colleague A to the evidence of the Registrant which was inconsistent with the earlier statements made by him to the Trust investigation, and it lacked credibility. The Panel found this proved.

92. Further, the Panel was satisfied that given the context and the language used by the Registrant that all of the conduct alleged in Particular 2 was a breach of proper professional boundaries. The Panel found the conduct was unwanted, overly familiar, personal and flirtatious and it was inappropriate in the work place.

Particular 3 – Proved

3) On 16 November 2021 and 18 November 2021, you provided a fabricated account of the ring incident.

93. On 16 November 2021 the Registrant is reported as stating to his Colleague LH in an interview:

“LH asked for clarification around the allegation of him placing his ring on her fingers. CJ claimed he was washing his hands at the time and that it was slipping off so he placed it on her finger and reported to saying “oh wow your fingers are so much smaller than mine”

94. On 18 November 2021 he stated in his written response to LH as follows:

“On the ward after seeing a patient before ward board round (MDT), I was washing my hands at the sink in front of the nursing station (Ward-22) when my ring fell off my finger, I proceeded to Picking it up while I was standing next to the victim as we were going through the therapy book, to tick on the patient that we have seen during that morning.
The victim initiated a conversation again with me, about my fingers are quite big in comparison to his/her fingers, we both looked at our fingers sizes, with me still holding my ring that I picked up, I asked the victim for me to try my ring in his/her fingers to see how big is my ring in the victim finger she agrees and render her hands for me to slip the ring on her finger, and we later laugh about it as my ring is very big. I personally did not force my ring onto her finger or touch her without consent as all this happen in front of the nursing station before board round.”

95. The Panel noted the significant differences in these accounts and that neither align with the CCTV footage which DB considered and gave evidence about. The Panel saw stills of that footage which show the Registrant sitting on the side of Colleague A’s desk not at the sink at the nursing station.

96. The Panel considered the degree of difference in these two accounts and it found them materially different. The latter account reports a conversation taking place at the sink at the nursing station after hand washing. The former account does not contain details of that conversation and reports the incident taking place during the hand washing itself. In one the Registrant states that his ring fell off after the hand washing and that it needed to be picked up, the other account describes the ring “slipping off” in the sink during hand washing.

97. The Panel applied the ordinary and natural meaning of the word “fabricate” which is to invent in order to deceive. The Panel was satisfied that these accounts were materially different and it found that it was not likely that in only two days an honest account of events would change to such a marked degree. Having heard and accepted the cogent and credible evidence of DB who viewed the CCTV, having seen the footage stills and having heard the evidence of Colleague A, the Panel was satisfied, on balance, that these accounts were fabricated by the Registrant in order to try to justify and explain away his conduct.

Particular 4 – Proved

4) Your conduct in relation to Particular 1, and 2 was sexually motivated.

98. The Panel found that the conduct and behaviour was intrusive and unwanted and that it breached appropriate professional boundaries, and it culminated with the unwanted touching of Colleague A by the Registrant (2 d) and 2 e)). The Panel found that this touching in reaching over and with the ring was the culmination of flirtatious behaviour. The Panel found that the Registrant’s behaviour was flirtatious towards both colleagues, who described his behaviour as “weird” and made them feel “uncomfortable”. Colleague A felt the conduct was sexual and she was emotionally disturbed by the Registrant’s behaviour, and was harmed by the Registrant’s conduct on her sole day of working with him. She was concerned about working with him again. The impact on Colleague A was serious. Colleague C told him several times directly that his comments were inappropriate.

99. The Panel was mindful of the guidance in Basson and Haris. It was satisfied that it was able to draw a reasonable inference from all the evidence before it. It concluded that the Registrant’s language taken together with the context and including the impact on both colleagues, was conduct and behaviour done in pursuit of a future sexual relationship and, in addition, took place for the Registrant’s sexual gratification. The Panel found that there was no evidence before it of any other plausible motivation for this behaviour.

Particular 5 – Proved

5) Your conduct in relation to Particular 3 was dishonest.

100. The Panel has found the two accounts given by the Registrant were fabricated. The Panel was mindful of its reasoning on fabrication above. It has found that the accounts were invented in order to deceive. Mindful of the guidance in Ivey, the Panel found that the Registrant knew his accounts were not true and, viewed objectively, the Panel found that his conduct was dishonest.

Submissions on Misconduct and Impairment of fitness to practise

101. Ms Bernard-Stevenson submitted that the facts found proved amounted to misconduct and she referred to the relevant case law. She reminded the Panel of the evidence of the impact of the Registrant’s conduct on Colleague A, and that there had also been a finding of dishonesty.

102. Ms Bernard-Stevenson referred to the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016) and submitted that the findings, individually or collectively, breached Standards 1.1, 2.5, 9.1 and amounted to misconduct.

103. Ms Bernard-Stevenson further submitted that if misconduct is found, the Panel should find fitness to practise is currently impaired. She submitted that the Registrant was impaired on both the personal and public elements of impairment and she referred the Panel to relevant case law.

104. Mr Ezike submitted that the incidents were isolated and did not demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that would be serious enough to amount to misconduct. He submitted that the Registrant had admitted much of his conduct. As to dishonesty, Mr Ezike submitted that the Registrant was not particularly dishonest as he had no intention to mislead, and he had simply been mistaken. He submitted that the Registrant had not had an intention to conceal his conduct. Mr Ezike submitted that the facts proved did not meet the threshold for serious professional misconduct.

105. On impairment, Mr Ezike said that the recommendation of the Trust, had the Registrant continued to work, would have been for him to proceed to a disciplinary hearing, to undertake dignity at work training and one to one coaching. He advised that the Registrant had undertaken courses in relation to dignity and privacy, duty of candour and conflict resolution. Mr Ezike submitted that the Registrant had shown remorse and insight and was not impaired. Mr Ezike submitted that there had been no previous incidents and these were isolated incidents that have not been repeated and no other parties or service users were involved. He submitted that the Registrant has remedied his practice and he was not currently impaired.

106. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the guidance on misconduct and seriousness in Roylance v GMC (no 2) [2000] 1 AC 311 and Remedy UK Ltd v GMC [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin); and to CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) on the assessment of impairment of fitness to practise. He reminded the Panel that both were a matter for its own professional judgement.

Decision on Misconduct

107. The Panel was mindful of Roylance and seriousness. The Panel has found that Particular 1 was a failure to maintain professional boundaries and was sexually motivated. That conduct took place in the work place and in the Registrant’s professional role. The Panel found that this conduct showed a distinct lack of respect and dignity towards Colleague C and can properly be described as deplorable conduct. The Panel found that this conduct fell far short of what was proper and was sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct.

108. In respect of Particular 2, the Panel has found this conduct and behaviour was sexually motivated and a breach of professional boundaries. The Registrant’s conduct caused distress and harm to Colleague A. The conduct was not isolated but was persistent and repeated and it failed to show respect for Colleague A. The Registrant demeaned and undermined Colleague A and failed to recognise her dignity. The Panel found that the breach of professional boundaries was itself serious enough to amount to misconduct, and is rendered more serious still by the finding that it was sexually motivated. The dishonesty found proved in the Registrants fabrication of his version of events to the Trust fell far below the standards expected of professional Occupational Therapists.

109. The Panel found that the conduct was a breach of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016), Standards 1.1, 2.5 and 9.1:-

1.1 You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.
2.5 You must work in partnership with colleagues, sharing your skills, knowledge and experience where appropriate, for the benefit of service users and carers.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

The Panel was satisfied that the principles of Standard 1.1 also apply to the treatment of colleagues.

110. The Panel concluded that taken individually or collectively, the conduct found proved fell far below what was proper in the circumstances, was serious and amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

111. The Panel was mindful of the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on impairment and in the Grant case. The Panel considered that the conduct and behaviour found proved is remediable. It considered whether the Registrant has done so.

112. The Panel took account of the evidence, albeit limited, that the Registrant had apologised in his interview with DB for any harm he had caused to Colleague A and that he had showed some remorse. The Panel has seen three certificates of courses undertaken by the Registrant, but it had no detail of the length, scope and content of those courses. The Panel noted that the Registrant did not appear to have undertaken any training or continued professional development in relation to maintaining professional boundaries. There are no testimonials or references that speak to the Registrants current professional practice.

113. The Panel found that there was limited evidence of any meaningful acknowledgement by the Registrant of the seriousness of his misconduct. There was limited evidence of any insight by him into his behaviour. Despite being rebuked by her, the Registrant’s responses to Colleague C were that he was being “jovial” and getting to know people. The Panel found that the evidence demonstrated an attitudinal issue and a serious failure by the Registrant to grasp the unacceptable nature of his conduct and behaviour, and its negative impact on his colleagues.

114. The Panel had limited evidence to demonstrate any insight, reflection or positive development by the Registrant of this attitude. The Registrant has not demonstrated that he really understands how his conduct toward two female colleagues was inappropriate. He repeated this behaviour towards Colleague C a month or so later with Colleague A.

115. Further, the Panel found that there was limited evidence that the Registrant has reflected on, grasps or understands the nature and the gravity of his sexually motivated conduct, or his dishonesty in respect of Particular 5. The Panel found that the Registrant has not adequately remedied his practice.

116. As a result the Panel concluded that there is a real risk of repetition of the misconduct found proved. The Panel was mindful of the suggested approach in Grant when assessing current impairment, as follows:-

“Do our findings of fact in respect of the doctor's misconduct, deficient professional performance, adverse health, conviction, caution or determination show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that s/he:
a. has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
b. has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or
c. has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession; and/or
d. has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future.”

117. The Panel concluded that the Registrant is liable to repeat his conduct in the future. It has found that, in the past, he caused harm to Colleague A, and is likely in the future to place colleagues at risk of harm. The Panel found that he is liable to bring the profession into disrepute; to breach fundamental tenets of profession, namely professional boundaries, respect and dignity; and that he is liable to act dishonestly in the future. The Panel concluded that the Registrant ‘s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the personal aspect of impairment.

118. As regards the public aspect, the Panel found that the Registrant’s misconduct is of a gravity and nature that not to make a finding of impairment would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulator, and would fail to uphold and declare proper professional standards. A reasonable and well-informed member of the public would be most concerned were the practice of a professional with these findings of misconduct not found to be impaired.

119. The Panel accordingly concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on the both the personal and public aspects of impairment.

Submissions on Sanction

120. Ms Bernard-Stevenson for the HCPC, submitted that all available sanctions should be considered. She referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and submitted that the following aggravating factors applied:-
• Limited insight
• Dishonesty
• Pattern of unacceptable and repeated behaviour
• Failure to work in partnership

121. Ms Bernard-Stevenson invited the Panel to impose a just and proportionate sanction.

122. Mr Ezike for the Registrant submitted that the Panel must act proportionately and be fair, just and reasonable and that the minimum sanction necessary should be imposed. In mitigation Mr Ezike submitted that a key point was the extent to which the Registrant had recognised his failings and expressed remorse and insight. He invited the Panel to take account of the good insight shown. The Registrant had recognised the allegations were serious and the conduct was inappropriate.

123. Mr Ezike referred to the investigation report from the Trust which he submitted makes clear that the Registrant accepted his conduct was inappropriate and he had offered a swift and sincere apology days after the events. He submitted that the Registrant had reflected and accepted that he ought to have done things differently, as set out in his witness statement. That was also reflected in the Trust investigation report.

124. Mr Ezike submitted that the Registrant has taken steps to remedy his practice to attempt to address the concerns raised and had undertaken courses that were not mandatory. In cross examination the Registrant had told the Panel that the courses were 1-3 hours long and he had reflected on the impact of his actions on the profession. He had stated in his evidence that he would do things differently. Mr Ezike submitted that the Registrant has demonstrated proper insight and addressed all the concerns.

125. Mr Ezike submitted that it was accepted that the findings were serious. He asked the Panel to refrain from striking off, which was a sanction of last resort and suggested that the findings did not meet the threshold for Striking Off or for Suspension. He submitted there is evidence that the Registrant was able to resolve and remedy his failings and is willing to undertake any further education and training requirements as directed by the Panel.

Decision on Sanction

126. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanction Policy and reminded it to act proportionately. He advised the Panel to consider the sanctions in ascending order and to apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public and the wider public interest. It should also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors, bear in mind the public interest and that the primary purpose of sanction was protection of the public.

127. The Panel was mindful of the need to act proportionately and considered sanction starting at the lowest level. It considered the HCPC Sanction Policy, particularly paragraphs 40; 45-47; 51-53 and 56-58; 61 & 76-77 dealing with breach of trust and dishonesty, lack of insight and remediation, failing to work in partnership and sexual misconduct.

128. The Panel first considered the aggravating and mitigating features. It found the following aggravating factors:-
• Limited insight
• Sexual motivation
• Dishonesty
• A pattern of behaviour.

129. The Panel found the following mitigating factors:-
• Apology and remorse
• Limited insight
• Some remediation
• Some limited admissions in the Trust investigation and at this hearing.

130. Given the nature and gravity of the findings, the Panel concluded that to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the findings. The Panel has found dishonesty and sexual motivation and that there is a risk of repetition and limited insight. Accordingly, to take no action or to impose a Caution Order would not be proportionate and would fail to sufficiently mark the seriousness of the findings. The Panel considered paragraph 101 of the Sanctions Policy on Caution Orders. It found that none of the factors listed in the guidance applied in this case. The misconduct found is serious and is not of a minor nature.

131. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. It was mindful of paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which indicates a number of factors when conditions may not be appropriate. These include dishonesty, failure to work in partnership and sexual misconduct. The Panel was of the view that the concerns in this case are essentially attitudinal in nature. Given the nature and gravity of the findings the Panel was of the view that it was not possible to devise realistic, workable and proportionate conditions that would be sufficient to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession. Conditions would also fail to appropriately mark the seriousness of the misconduct and would fail to send a message that this conduct is totally unacceptable.

132. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. It considered paragraph 121. Whilst the Panel considered that the Registrant has some way to go to remedy his practice, he has shown some, albeit, limited insight and he has undertaken some courses on the path towards remediation of his practice. The Panel found that his misconduct is remediable and it was satisfied that that he is willing and able to resolve the concerns.

133. The Panel decided that a Suspension Order would be the appropriate and proportionate sanction. A nine month suspension order would serve to protect the public and would properly mark the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel considered that to impose a lengthier period would go further than is required to meet the overarching objectives of the regulator.

134. The Panel did consider a Striking Off Order, and it considered paragraphs 130 and 131 of the Sanctions Guidance. It was mindful that although serious, the sexually motivated conduct and the dishonesty in this case were not at the most serious end of the spectrum of such conduct, such as conduct involving violence, physical or sexual assault or criminal conduct.

135. The Panel was mindful of proportionality and the Sanctions guidance which states at paragraph 131:- “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.”

136. The Panel in all the circumstances of this case, found that the misconduct was not of a nature or gravity that it could properly conclude that nothing less than a Striking Off Order would be sufficient to protect the public and wider public confidence. The Panel as of the view that to impose such an order in this case would go further than was necessary, would be disproportionate and punitive.

137. A future panel may be assisted by the Registrant providing the following when this Suspension Order is reviewed before it expires:-

• Evidence of well developed insight, such as a written reflective piece
• Evidence of further professional development in the areas of professional boundaries, dignity, respect and trust
• References and testimonials relevant to the findings in this case.

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of Charles K Jimingo from the Register for a period of 9 months.

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

1. In light of its findings on Sanction, the Panel next considered an application by Ms Bernard – Stevenson for an Interim Suspension Order to cover the appeal period before the Sanction becomes operative. The interim order was opposed and Mr Ezike submitted it was unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and would be disproportionate.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred it to the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders. He reminded the Panel to consider its earlier findings and to be mindful that an Interim Order must be necessary to protect the public, or be otherwise in the public interest. The Panel must act proportionately and balance the interests of the Registrant with the need to protect the public.

3. The Panel was mindful of its earlier findings and concluded that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public during the appeal period. The Panel decided that that it would be wholly incompatible with its earlier findings and with the Suspension Order imposed not to find an interim order necessary for the protection of the public and otherwise in the wider public interest. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be imposed on both public protection and public interest grounds and it decided it was appropriate for that to be imposed for a period of 18 months to cover the possible appeal period. An Interim Conditions of Practice order would not be appropriate given the findings and reasoning set out in the above decision. When the appeal period of 28 days expires this Interim Suspension Order will come to an end unless there has been an application to appeal. If there is no appeal the Suspension Order shall apply when the appeal period expires.

History of Hearings for Charles Jimingo