Christopher Sharpe

Preliminary Matters

Panel Member declaration

1. At the outset of the hearing, Ms Ciarna Brooker, the Registrant Panellist Member declared that she worked in the area of Brachytherapy and was part of a forum of practitioners in this area. Ms Brooker noted that witness KW worked in this area but confirmed that she has never met, worked or communicated with KW. She also was not able to ascertain whether KW was part of the Brachytherapy forum group which she belonged to. Ms Brooker confirmed that she was content to continue sitting on the hearing on this basis. 

2. The HCPC and the Registrant confirmed that they had no issue with Ms Brooker sitting as the Registrant Panellist Member, and neither party requested that she recused herself due to her work in the same area as witness KW.

3. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor's advice, which made references to the authorities of Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties [2000] IRLR 96, Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 and Suleman v General Optical Council [2023] EWHC 2110 (Admin).

4. The Chair and Lay Panellist had regard to all of the circumstances and the nature of Ms Brooker’s declaration. The Chair and Lay Panellist determined that Ms Brooker had no personal or pecuniary interest in the case. The Chair and Lay Panellist considered that a fair-minded observer, having considered the relevant facts, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of conscious or subconscious bias. On the basis that none of the parties raised any objections to Ms Brooker sitting as the Registrant Panellist, the Chair and Lay Panellist concluded that Ms Brooker should continue to sit on the case.

Application for the hearing to be conducted in private

5. Mr Pataky appearing on behalf of the Registrant, made an application for parts of the hearing to be conducted in private. He submitted that there was a need for the hearing to be conducted partly in private when dealing with matters relating to the Registrant’s health and family in order to protect the Registrant’s private life.

6. Ms Warwick on behalf of the HCPC agreed with the application.

7. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor's advice, which had drawn its attention to Rule 10(1) of the of the HCPC Rules and to the HCPTS Practice Note on 'Conducting Hearings in Private'.

8. The Panel had regard to all of the circumstances and the nature of the case. The Panel determined that any reference to the Registrant’s health and family life should also be heard in private, so as to protect the Registrant’s right to privacy.

9. The Panel therefore ordered that those parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s health and family life be conducted in private.

Application to amend the Allegation

10. Ms Warwick made an application to amend the stem of the allegation and particular 4 to correct a typographical error in that the allegation should read “practise” and not “practice”. Further, Ms Warwick applied to amend Particular 1(b) of the allegations from the words “it’s ok I’ll put me knee on her neck” to “it’s ok I’ll put my knee on her neck”.

11. In addition, Ms Warwick applied to amend Particular 2 of the Allegation to read “your conduct in relation to particular 1a and/or b were racially motivated”, so as to clarify that the panel could find one, both or neither element of Particular 1 were racially motivated.

12. Mr Pataky on behalf of the Registrant did not oppose the application made by Ms Warwick on behalf of the HCPC.

13. The Panel accepted the legal advice in respect of amendments to the allegation. The Panel determined that the amendments proposed in respect of the typographical errors were minor in nature and provided clarity to the charge. The Panel determined that in all the circumstances it was fair to amend the allegations to amend these typographical errors. In respect of Ms Warwick’s further amendment application in respect of Particular 2 namely to amend the Particular to read “your conduct in relation to particular 1a and/or b were racially motivated”, the Panel considered that this provided clarity in respect of the matters to be considered by the Panel. The Panel concluded that there was no prejudice to the Registrant in amending the allegation and noted that his representative Mr Pataky did not oppose the application. In all the circumstances the Panel determined that it was fair to amend the allegation.

14. The Panel therefore granted the application to amend the allegation in full.

Admissibility of further evidence

15. Ms Warwick on behalf of the HCPC applied to adduce further evidence, namely a policy from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) entitled “Bullying and Harassment Policy”. Ms Warwick informed the panel that this evidence had been provided to the Registrant in advance of the hearing, however there was a dispute as to its admissibility. Ms Warwick submitted that the document was relevant, and it was fair to admit it. Ms Warwick stated that the policy was relevant to the Panel’s consideration of the nature and seriousness of the conduct, as well as expected standards of behaviour and conduct. It was submitted that if the Panel consider that the Registrant’s conduct contravened the policies, the Panel may consider this to be an aggravating factor when considering the issue of seriousness.

16. Mr Pataky on behalf of the Registrant opposed the HCPC’s application. He noted that the policy related to Bullying and Harassment, which were not relevant to the allegations before the Panel. Mr Pataky relied on the case of El Baroudy v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2894 (Admin). He submitted that the HCPC had not brought allegations of bullying or harassment, and as such the Panel should not in any way base its judgments on matter on the policy. Mr Pataky submitted that it would be unfair to admit such evidence as it was not relevant to the decisions which the Panel needed to make. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor's advice in respect of the admission of new evidence which included reference to El Baroudy.

17. The Panel considered the submissions of both parties with care. It agreed with the submissions of Mr Pataky that the policy in respect of bullying and harassment was not relevant to this case, as such allegations had not been brought by the HCPC. The Panel considered that it was inappropriate to consider the nature and seriousness of the conduct in this case based upon a policy which related to entirely different conduct. As such the Panel considered that the evidence was not relevant, and it would be unfair to admit it.

Background

18. The Registrant was employed by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) at the relevant time as a Band 7 Radiographer and team leader.

19. On 14 July 2022 the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant advising that he had been suspended pending investigation regarding an allegation relating to comments that had been perceived as racially offensive and/or derogatory.

20. Concerns had come to light in respect of the Registrant’s conduct when an anonymous letter addressed to Person E was posted under the Technical Lead Radiographers’ Office door. The letter stated as follows;
“We are horrified and disgusted to tell you what we have heard being said in regard to A our receptionist who is a person of colour. A member of staff named Chris was having a conversation with D. He was having a discussion about A’s hair with D and other room 1 members of staff were present. D made a comment “don’t be out of order she will come and deal with you” to which Chris responded with “ I WILL PUT MY KNEE ON HER NECK”. In line with the black lives matter movement where an innocent man died, we are deeply disgusted and saddened why such a XXX remark was made. We will be informing XXXX Manager will also be informed as well as XXXX from the Review team. We want immediate action to be taken considering the seriousness of this comment, as Chris is on an interview panel this week which we want him taken off of as there are people of colour who are being interviewed. We feel is not acceptable whilst this is being investigated.”

21. This letter was reviewed by AQ (Technical Lead Radiographer) and RS (Radiotherapy Lead Manager), who subsequently informed the Registrant of the concern and sought input from the Trust’s Human Resources team. A disciplinary investigation was subsequently conducted by SS and GC (HR Advisor).

22. The relevant comments are alleged to have occurred during a conversation during which KW and AA were present but were made in relation to Colleague A, who was not present at the time. Both KW and AA provide details of their recollection events within their respective witness statements.

23. The Registrant was interviewed by the Trust on 21 July 2022, and provided a written statement of events in which he says “I stated that we’ve got a ‘Tina Turner look alike’ on the reception desk”, and that when it was said that Colleague A would ‘get to him’ if she knew he had said that he replied “It’s okay I’ll put my knee on her neck”.

24. The Registrant also provided the Trust with a reflective statement in relation to the conversation.

25. On 29 March 2023, a Panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer in respect of matters.

26. The HCPC called the following witnesses to give live evidence:
• RS – Radiotherapy Lead Manager
• KW – Deputy Radiographer
• AQ – Technical Lead Radiographer

27. At the outset of the hearing the Panel were informed that at a preliminary hearing on 29 January 2025, a decision was made to allow the HCPC to rely on the evidence of AA in their absence, as well as the evidence of GC.

Admissions

28. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant admitted factual Particular 1 in its entirety. On the basis of the Registrant’s formal admission to Particular 1(a) and (b), and in line with the HCPTS Practice Note on “Admissions” the Panel found Particulars 1(a) and (b) of the allegation proved. The Panel decided that it was fair and appropriate to make findings of fact based on the Registrant’s admissions for these particulars.

RS
29. RS gave evidence under affirmation. RS confirmed the content of her witness statement and her exhibits. In respect of her role, RS confirmed that she was the Radiotherapy Lead Manager at the time of the concerns and continues to hold this role. RS confirmed that this was a managerial and leadership role, and she had line management responsibilities over a large group of radiographers. RS recalled that the Registrant was a team leader and confirmed that they would have discussions infrequently.

30. RS explained that it was the Registrant’s role to lead a team working on a unit which would normally have been a team of four radiographers including the team leader. RS stated the team would have provided care to radiotherapy patients during a 10-hour clinical day, five days a week as a result of this the team would work a shift system. RS confirmed that the Registrant would have been the most senior person within the team and would have been the first point of escalation if any concerns were raised.

31. In respect of the incident on 28 June 2022, RS confirmed that she arrived early that day around 8am and when she arrived, she unlocked the adjacent office and picked up the portable telephone to take any calls about staff sickness that day. She noticed a letter addressed to her colleague AQ. RS stated that AQ arrived shortly after her and opened the letter with her. RS stated that it was an anonymous letter detailing the events that had occurred.

32. RS confirmed as a result of the letter a fact-finding exercise was carried out. She asked open questions to the Registrant, and when she became more specific the Registrant realised what she was talking about. RS stated he admitted it straightaway and expressed remorse. RS confirmed that the Registrant had said matters were a joke. She noted that the Registrant was horrified, and it was clear that he hadn't particularly thought about the implications behind his words until that point. RS noted that following the discussion he was horrified and very apologetic.

33. RS explained the next steps in the process after questioning the Registrant she stated they needed to ascertain who was working with the Registrant. RS confirmed she took account from 2-3 witnesses and their accounts accorded with the Registrant’s. RS confirmed matters were escalated to HR. RS confirmed that the incident occurred on 23 June 2022 and the anonymous letter was received on 28 June 2022.

34. RS confirmed that she made a referral to the HCPC as a result of the allegation on 28 July 2022. RS confirmed that this was the extent of her role.

35. RS was asked questions in cross examination. RS was asked whether she was aware that the Registrant had already referred himself to the HCPC before her referral on 28 July 2022. She confirmed that she was aware of this.

36. RS was asked whether or not she showed the anonymous letter to the Registrant. RS confirmed she could not recall if she had shown the letter. She stated that she probably would have specified what the allegation was to the Registrant. RS confirmed that she could not recall how she did that, but she stated she provided the Registrant with the knowledge she had at that point, which was contained in the anonymous letter.

37. RS stated she believed she put the matter to the Registrant openly and asked if he remembered a comment about the person specified in the anonymous letter first. RS acknowledged she couldn’t recall matters. RS was asked about the anonymous letter and the section in respect of discussions around Colleague A’s hair and whether she referred to this at the start. RS confirmed that this was probable. She was asked whether after this she would have mentioned the comment in respect of a knee to the neck. RS confirmed that this was probable.

38. RS was asked about her evidence that the Registrant put his head in hands she confirmed this. She was asked whether the Registrant had asked if he could apologise to everyone. She confirmed this was the case. RS stated that the Registrant immediately accepted what was alleged. RS described the head in the hands gesture of the Registrant as a gesture of dismay and noted that the Registrant was horrified.

39. RS confirmed that she did not think the Registrant understood the implication and the connotations of what he had said until he reflected back on it and then realised the meaning of the words. RS described the Registrant instantly accepting matters and instantly offering an apology. RS described the Registrant as being devastated, she stated she could see this through his demeanour.

40. In respect of the Registrant’s abilities RS confirmed that the Registrant fulfilled his role well. RS confirmed that the Trust was culturally diverse, and the Registrant’s feedback was always positive. RS confirmed that no other concerns had been raised about the Registrant in his seven years at the Trust, and he was supportive to colleagues. RS confirmed that the comments made by the Registrant were completely out of character and he has otherwise been wholly professional.

41. RS agreed in cross examination that the Registrant was a mild-mannered person who was respectful.

KW
42. KW gave evidence under affirmation. She confirmed the content of her witness statement was true to the best of her knowledge and belief. KW confirmed that she had a good working relationship with the Registrant, and she had worked for the Trust with the Registrant for 3 years, in a team managed by the Registrant.

43. In respect of the incident, she confirmed her recollection of matters was better at the time of the incident when she provided her statement. She confirmed that she heard the comments made by the Registrant and had said you can’t make these jokes. KW confirmed that there had been comments in the department about her due to her being black and having curly hair by others, but not the Registrant, had mistaken her for a different person i.e. KW. She stated that she did not believe the comment made in respect of Tina Turner was connected to race and she had several conversations about people mistaking her for someone else.

44. KW was asked about the knee on her neck comment and stated that she understood at the time that this was in relation to George Floyd. KW was asked how she felt about the comment, and she stated that she didn’t feel any way about it. KW was taken to her interview in respect of these matters, and she confirmed that her response during the interview was that she was shocked by the comment and questioned why the Registrant would make comments like that.

45. KW confirmed the comment made by the Registrant was inappropriate and not professional. KW confirmed that after the HR interview her involvement in the case was brought to a conclusion. KW was asked about the location of the incident she stated that it took place in Room 1 where there were no patients and four members of staff including herself.

46. KW was asked questions in cross examination. KW confirmed that there were four people present when the comments were made by the Registrant and no patients were present or in ear shot. It was put to KW that the Registrant made the comparison between Colleague A and Tina Turner because of her hair and only after this said, ‘I wouldn’t say a white person looked like Tina Turner’. KW agreed with this statement, she stated that the comment was made about Colleague A. KW stated that she doesn’t look like Tina Turner.

47. In respect of her comment about Colleague A fighting the Registrant KW confirmed this was not a reference to an actual fight but a hypothetical fight. KW agreed that this was a light-hearted comment. KW agreed that she was suggesting that Colleague A would come after the Registrant because she would not be impressed by his comment.

48. KW stated it was not in the Registrant’s nature to be racist, and he would not have meant it in this way. KW agreed the comment in respect of put his knee on Colleague A’s neck was ill-judged. KW stated that she had known the Registrant for a long time and the comment was light-hearted with no malice or intent. KW confirmed that the comment was a chuck away comment. KW confirmed that she got on well with the Registrant. She confirmed her evidence in her witness statement that she believed the Registrant would never say anything out of spite and that he didn’t hold derogatory views.

49. KW confirmed that the comment was completely out of character. She stated the Registrant was very professional and she enjoyed working with him. She stated he was easy going and created a relaxing atmosphere in what was a very busy and stressful environment. KW confirmed that she believed the Registrant to be a mild mannered and gentle person. She stated she had learnt a lot from the Registrant, and he was highly respected in the workplace.

50. In re-examination KW confirmed that the comment made with reference to George Floyd was shocking and she did not agree with it.

AQ
51. AQ gave evidence under affirmation. AQ confirmed the content of his witness statement was true. AQ confirmed that he was the Technical Lead Radiographer, he stated this was an operational role in which he provided technical support to the department. He also dealt with annual leave, sickness and conflict management. AQ confirmed he had a managerial role over 85-90 radiographers.

52. AQ confirmed that the Registrant was in a managerial role, and they had worked together for a long time. In respect of the incident on 28 June 2022 he stated that he went into the office and discovered the letter addressed to him, he opened it and went to his line manager RS. AQ was asked why the letter was addressed to him and he explained in his role he was the first port of call to deal with staff problems and he believed the author or authors felt comfortable raising the issue with him.

53. In respect of the allegation, he said at that stage he had no clarity or information about the events, so he wished to seek further clarity. In respect of the comments alleged he stated that they raised concerns, and he was concerned about them having been made in a professional environment and about a fellow colleague.

54. AQ confirmed that he spoke with the Registrant and essentially asked the Registrant whether he had any recollection of any inappropriate conversations that might have taken place on his treatment unit at the time and whether he remembers seeing anything that could have upset anyone. He stated at first the Registrant was not aware of anything however when the quote from the letter was provided, he had a recollection of making comments like the comment in the letter.

55. AQ confirmed that the Registrant was visibly distressed. He stated that the Registrant sat back in his chair and his immediate response was that he did not mean for the comments to cause any offence, and he wished to apologise. AQ stated the Registrant insisted that he didn’t mean anything by the comment and asked if there was anything that he could do immediately to remedy the situation.

56. AQ confirmed that he did not show the Registrant the letter and provided the quote. He confirmed after the meeting with the Registrant the matter was taken over by RS and the HR department.

57. AQ was cross examined. He confirmed that he first started working with the Registrant in around 2015. He confirmed that he had known the Registrant for a long time and no other concerns had arisen and he did not have any personal concerns in relation to the Registrant. He confirmed that he never had any concerns about the Registrant’s behaviour, conduct or language.

58. In respect of the meeting with the Registrant on 28 June 2022 AQ confirmed he was unclear of the facts in the anonymous letter for example when the comments had been made, and the detail of what was being alleged. AQ confirmed that he asked the Registrant if he has any recollection of any inappropriate conversations or making a comment that may have upset any other member of staff in the recent month or so. AQ confirmed the Registrant did not recall anything noteworthy being said. But accepted that he had made comments when the specific detail was put to him.

59. AQ acknowledged that the anonymous letter made reference to the hair of Colleague A, and he stated that he could not rule out the possibility that he raised hair in his conversation with the Registrant.

60. AQ stated that in response to the allegation regarding putting his knee on the neck of Colleague A he held his head in his hands and took ownership. AQ confirmed that the Registrant was regretful and tried to take ownership for what he had done.

61. AQ confirmed that the comments were totally out of character and were not something he would have thought the Registrant would say. He confirmed that the Registrant was a mild-mannered gentle person, who was respectful and supportive. AQ stated that staff requested to work with the Registrant because of his calm and respectful nature. He confirmed that he has otherwise always been professional.

62. AQ was asked whether the Registrant had a dark sense of humour, he stated that there was never anything that he witnessed that broke thresholds. He stated the Registrant was always polite and professional and his humour made him feel comfortable.

The Registrant

63. The Registrant gave evidence under affirmation. He confirmed the content of his witness statement was true. Further he confirmed that he had no prior convictions or cautions or fixed penalty notices. He confirmed that there were no HCPC or other proceedings that he had been the subject of. He confirmed he has not been the subject of any restriction on his practice.

64. The Registrant provided details as to his background in Radiotherapy. He confirmed that he studied at Sheffield Hallam between 2010 and 2013. He stated prior to going to Sheffield Hallam neither of his parents had gone to university. He stated he was motivated to start a career in radiotherapy for personal reasons. He confirmed that he was 18 when he started his Radiotherapy course, and he was now 33. The Registrant confirmed that his first role was in Derby as a band 5, he took a role at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital as a Band 6 and described the responsibilities of that role.

65. The Registrant confirmed that he worked in a band 6 role for two years and then applied for a band 7 team leader role. The Registrant described his responsibilities in the role and stated that he had responsibility for a treatment room and overall responsibility for the patients that were allocated to that unit and also the staff that were working on that unit at the time as well. He agreed that his job met the job description provided by RS.

66. The Registrant confirmed that he accepted the comments outlined in the allegation were said by him. He stated that these were made in the control room area. In respect of who was present the Registrant recalled KW and two other Radiographers being present. He confirmed that they were all band 6 Radiographers, and no patients were present or in earshot at the time. He stated to his knowledge no one else was present.

67. The Registrant confirmed he was in RS’s office when he was informed of the concerns against him. The Registrant confirmed that he didn’t see the anonymous letter but was told about its content by RS and AQ. The Registrant stated that at first the discussion was whether something was said about someone’s hair. The Registrant stated at first he could not recall any conversations about someone’s hair. He stated he recalled matters when reference was made to a comment about placing a knee on the neck.

68. The Registrant stated that he was devastated. He said when the words were put to him in black and white he was embarrassed. He stated he was shocked that he chose to use those words and say those things because it wasn’t who he was. The Registrant stated it made him question who he was. He stated he wanted to make everything right and apologise but he was not allowed.

69. The Registrant stated when he was confronted with matters he was uncomfortable and held his head in his hands. He stated he accepted matters straight away. The Registrant explained that he was subsequently suspended. He was notified of the suspension when at a friend’s wedding, whilst on annual leave. He was not able to recall the exact date of the suspension.

70. The Registrant stated that he self-referred to the HCPC because he knew matters were serious and he was being honest. He confirmed that his referral contained the date of his suspension which was 14 July 2022. The Registrant confirmed the content of his initial statement to the Trust that he was unsure how the conservation had started, that he stated, “We’ve got a Tina Turner look alike on the reception desk”. He stated he was then questioned by his colleague who stated, “you’re only saying that because she's black”. He replied, “No, I was just saying it because of her hair and no, I wouldn't say someone that was white would look like Tina Turner”. He was told that Colleague A would come and get him if she knew what he had said. He then replied, “It's OK, I'll put my knee on her neck”. He acknowledged at the time this was very dark humour. He stated the atmosphere in the room wasn't one of hostility, it was jovial. At the time he didn't understand the ramifications of his words. He could not remember the conversation going further after this.

71. The Registrant stated there wasn’t a reaction to what he said, and no one pulled him up on this at the time. He stated at the time he didn’t understand that what he was saying was wrong.

72. The Registrant confirmed that the interview record of the interview he had with the Trust was accurate. He stated that in respect of the Tina Turned comment he was saying this because Colleague A had blonde highlights in her hair. The Registrant acknowledged that in the interview he was asked about the tone and context of the conversation that took place. He confirmed in the interview that he had said that he thought it was banter. The Registrant stated that he has done a reflection on the situation and looking back it shouldn't have been like that.

73. He confirmed that he acknowledged in the interview that he should not have said the comment. He confirmed that in relation to the comment about the knee on the neck he had stated that this was a joke in relation to what happened in America. The Registrant confirmed it was an insensitive thing to say and was inappropriate. The Registrant stated that he knew at the time that was a risky thing to say, but it wasn't meant in malice, and he had no intentions to actually do that. He stated it was a joke, but poor and insensitive joke.

74. The Registrant confirmed that he had prepared a reflective piece since the incident and took the Panel through this statement. This confirmed initially he was very upset and angry with himself and embarrassed. He wanted to apologise and try to resolve the situation. However, he stated there is a bigger picture and fundamentally what he said was not “OK” regardless of who was offended or not. He stated the situation has left him feeling very broken. He stated all the hard work he put in over the last seven years in the department had been shattered and he needs to learn from his mistakes. He was upset that he could have potentially hurt any of his colleagues with what he said. He stated this was crushing. The Registrant then read out his reflective piece to the Panel.

75. The Registrant stated that the comment he made about putting his knee on his colleague’s neck, makes him feel sick whenever he thinks about the words he used. He stated that this does not reflect the person that he is. He stated hearing the individual’s level of distress within the report he received on 1 September 2022 left him feeling distraught. He stated he was ashamed that anyone would fear him or feel threatened or be scared by him.

76. The Registrant stated due to his 6’6” appearance he has always been aware that his presence can be intimidating. He stated to compensate for that, he is always striving to be friendly and approachable. He is referred to by family, friends and colleagues as a gentle giant.

77. The Registrant stated the words he used on the day in question had no intent and they were not said in malice or with aggression. The Registrant stated he could see now what he said was not humour.

78. The Registrant was asked about Colleague A. He confirmed that he didn’t have managerial responsibility over her, and she was aged 45-50. He stated he didn’t know why he felt the need to make the comparison. He stated that while Colleague A was black, race wasn’t wholly part of the comment. He stated it was not his intention to be hostile or have a discriminatory attitude. He confirmed that he did not accept his actions were racially motivated. The Registrant confirmed his comments were inappropriate and he hadn’t made any similar comments since and he would never again make a similar comment. He stated he was ashamed. In respect of the George Floyd comment he stated he wasn’t thinking about the colour of Colleague A’s skin, and he wasn’t thinking about race when he said it. He stated it wasn’t his intention to display hostility or a discriminatory attitude. He confirmed that he did not accept the comment was racially motivated.

79. The Registrant stated the comment was horrendously inappropriate and made him feel sick. He stated he had let everyone down and felt embarrassed and ashamed.

80. The Registrant confirmed that he has been in his current role since December 2022, and they are aware of the allegations. He confirmed that there had been no concerns raised. He confirmed his manager spoke with RS when he started his role and was fully aware of the incident and the HCPC investigation.

81. The Registrant referred to a number of courses which he had undertaken since the incident including a course on equality, diversity and human rights, which also covered protected characteristics. He confirmed that that course was online, through a learning portal and lasted an hour. The Registrant confirmed that he had completed courses on unconscious bias at work and courses on discrimination, these included training entitled “Introducing Union Black” and “Lottery of Birth”. He confirmed that he completed a course on 15 January 2025 and had typed up his handwritten notes on the learning that he had undertaken and asked that the Panel take this into account. He noted that this course was a 24-hour course, and he had completed it over a period of two weeks. He also referred the Panel to his training record.

82. [In Private]

83. The Registrant was cross examined. He was asked about the incident on 23 June 2022 and confirmed he was in the control room with his 3 colleagues. He stated he must have walked past Colleague A on reception in the outpatient department for the comment to have arisen. He confirmed that this would have prompted the conversation. The Registrant confirmed that he made an observation about Colleague A’s appearance and described that as banter.

84. The Registrant confirmed it wasn’t a kind joke, and it was a joke at Colleague A’s expense, about her appearance. He confirmed it was insensitive. The Registrant accepted that race was part of the comparison. It was put to the Registrant that the comment was motivated in real terms by race issues. He confirmed that this was correct.

85. The Registrant accepted that he made the comment that it was not something that he would have said about a white person. The Registrant accepted that the comment was inappropriate and unprofessional. It was put to the Registrant that the comment was discriminatory towards Colleague A. He stated that reflecting on it, it was discriminatory. He stated that this was not the way he intended it. He stated at the time he wasn't intending to be mean about Colleague A but on reflection, it was not a nice thing to say.

86. The Registrant confirmed that he could see that someone looking at the comment could interpret it was a hostile comment based on Colleague A’s race.

87. The Registrant accepted making the comment about putting his knee of Colleague A’s neck. He confirmed on reflection he was now upset and disappointed with those words. He confirmed that at the time this was an attempt at humour or dark humour. He confirmed that he was referencing that the George Floyd incident in America.

88. The Registrant accepted that the George Floyd incident was a very hostile and aggressive incident involving a police officer detaining a black male. The Registrant accepted that the incident with George Floyd had been widely reported, and it was known as a racial incident. He confirmed that he knew there had been outcry and a movement as a result of the particular incident. The Registrant was asked whether that is why a joke being made about how you might handle a black colleague in a dispute, was described by him as dark humour. He confirmed that this was correct.

89. The Registrant accepted it wasn’t a joke he made about a white colleague. The Registrant stated however that he wasn’t thinking about race or considering Colleague A’s race at this stage. He stated he could not say whether he would have made the joke about a white colleague. He stated he wasn’t thinking about race at this stage and the comment left his mouth without making the connection.

90. The Registrant accepted that the comment was hostile and was not a very nice thing to say. He agreed the comment was discriminatory. It was suggested to the Registrant that the reason he was so embarrassed about the comment was because of the joke being based in race. He confirmed this was correct.

91. It was suggested to the Registrant that at the time the joke was made the Registrant would have realised the connection with the race. The Registrant stated he wasn’t thinking about race at the time.

92. The Registrant agreed his comments were highly offensive and discriminatory towards black people.

93. The Registrant stated that he was aware at the time that the comments were inappropriate. It was put to him that KW had said you can’t say that. The Registrant stated that he couldn’t describe it. He stated KW had not been offended by what he said. He said it was not how he felt at the time.

94. The Registrant stated that his first realisation of the offence he had caused happened at the meeting with RS. It was put to the Registrant that he acknowledged that this was dark humour. He was asked at what point he acknowledged this. He stated at the time this was how he was defending his comment. He stated he was using that excuse of dark humour. He stated he was saying this to express that he didn’t mean it. He stated however having it brought to him in black and white, having the comments written down and seeing them he realised it was not okay.

95. The Registrant was asked if the matter had not been reported would he have realised his inappropriateness. He stated he did not think he would have, he stated he had forgotten about the conversation, and he was ignorant. The Registrant was asked how he was able to say that he would not make similar comments if he didn’t recognise his actions. The Registrant stated he had reflected and his whole character had changed since the incident. He stated he was now hyper aware and did not talk in a negative way. He confirmed that the comments were out of character, and he was embarrassed.

96. The Registrant emphasised that he disagreed that the comments he made were racially motivated. He stated he could see how the first comment was derogatory, but this was not his intention. He stated he did not have aggressive or malicious traits.

97. In re-examination the Registrant confirmed that he was not thinking about race when making the comment in respect of George Floyd. He confirmed that the joke at Colleague A’s expense was not intended to be insensitive. He stated he had reflected on the comments, and he accepted they are discriminatory but did not realise they were discriminatory at the time. He stated he did not intend the comments to be hostile and on the basis of race. He stated the knee of the neck comment did not relate to Colleague A’s race as he was not considering this at the time.

98. In response to questions from the Panel the Registrant confirmed the sequence of events in respect of his comments and stated he wasn’t regularly using dark humour at work. He maintained that his comments were not driven by race. The Registrant was asked about the impact on the black community of the George Floyd matter, he stated that the community would be deeply offended by his actions and his comments dehumanised the whole thing.

99. The Registrant confirmed that he currently works in a multicultural setting and there have been no further incidents.

Decision on Facts

100. The Panel heard submissions on the facts from Ms Warwick on behalf of the HCPC and from Mr Pataky on behalf of the Registrant.

101. Ms Warwick addressed the Panel at length. The below is a short summary of the submissions made.

102. Ms Warwick submitted that the HCPC had proved Particular 2 of the Allegation to the requisite standard and that the words used by the registrant were racially motivated. Ms Warwick referred the panel to the authority of Robert Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin). Ms Warwick submitted that the comments were at least in significant part referable to race and must be done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group.

103. Ms Warwick addressed the Panel in respect of Particular 1(b) and submitted that the context of the comment was relevant. She noted it was accepted by the Registrant that it related to the George Floyd incident. She's submitted that this was a highly reported case, with sensitive issues which clearly involved race, discrimination and issues of historic hostility. She submitted the comment by itself was a highly racially charged sentence, which would be considered hostile and derogatory to the people of the black community. Ms Warwick stated that the Registrant contention that he was not considering race at the time that he made this comment, was inconsistent with the evidence before the Panel. Ms Warwick submitted that the comment demonstrated hostility to a particular racial group as it was reference to a violent, oppressive and discriminatory event.

104. Ms Warwick submitted that whether the Registrant did not wish that to happen or now regrets his actions is a matter that the Panel will take into account as another stage in the proceedings. She submitted in accordance with the guidance and the law, that the subsequent regret would not prevent the Panel from making a finding in respect of Particular 2. Ms Warwick referred to the comment of Fordham J in Robert Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin) that “the intention to try and get a "laugh" does not in any way detract from the fact that this was entirely or in significant part a purpose referable to race; nor from the fact that this was done in a way showing hostility and/or a discriminatory attitude.”

105. In respect of Particular 1(a) Ms Warwick submitted that this was not of itself an obvious racial slur or an obvious derogatory comment, however looked at in context it is more likely than not that the conversation and subsequent comment was racially motivated. Ms Warwick noted that the Registrant accepted in questioning that the comment related to Colleague A’s race. Ms Warwick submitted that the Registrant accepted that the joke was at the expense of Colleague A and accepted it was an unacceptable comment to make.

106. Ms Warwick submitted the Panel may feel it more likely than not that the comment showed hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group. She submitted that the Panel should consider both comments in context.

107. Mr Pataky on behalf of the Registrant addressed the Panel at length. The below is a short summary of the submissions made.

108. Mr Pataky noted that the task of the Panel was to decide if the comments were “racially motivated” and not whether they were inappropriate and/or offensive. Mr Pataky submitted the comments were made in a lighthearted exchange in the presence of three colleagues. Mr Pataky relied on the evidence of KW and stated that it was clear that the comment was spontaneous and was a comparison of Colleague A’s physical characteristics. He submitted there was no suggestion of a racial slur or derogatory comments and noted that the comment was made in respect of Colleague A’s hair.

109. In respect of the comment relating to the knee to the neck Mr Pataky submitted that the Registrant wasn’t considering race when he made this comment. Mr Pataky noted that the Registrant had recognized the significance of his comments and when confronted by RS and AQ had is head in his hands and was dismayed. He stated this was powerful evidence of the spontaneous and lighthearted nature of the comment.

110. Mr Pataky submitted that the HCPC had not satisfied the burden of proving that the comments were racially motivated. He referred the Panel to the cases of Byrne v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) and Robert Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin).

111. Mr Pataky submitted that the test in respect of racial motivation was subjective. He invited the Panel to look at the Registrant’s motivations and relied upon the evidence of KW, stating that she did not view the actions of the Registrant to be motivated by race.

112. Mr Pataky submitted that the Registrant was a person spoken of in the highest regard in respect of his integrity, professionalism and polite and caring approach. He noted that the Registrant is of good character and submitted that the Panel should take this into account in respect of his propensity to act in the way alleged.

113. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She reminded the Panel of the burden and standard of proof. She also advised the Panel on the authority of Byrne v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) and Robert Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin) and referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.

114. The Panel was mindful of the legal advice and the guidance in the case law. It assessed all the evidence in the round.

Particular 2
“Your conduct in relation to particulars 1a and/or 1b was racially motivated.”

115. The Panel first considered the comment that the Registrant accepted making in Particular 1(a), namely “we’ve got a Tina Turner look alike” or words to that effect. The Panel considered that it was important to consider the context and surrounding circumstances of the comment in order to determine whether or not the comment was “racially motivated”. The Panel noted that the test was subjective and therefore based upon the person's state of mind or intent based on their individual perspective, considering their personal beliefs, thoughts, and intentions at the time of an action, rather than relying solely on objective facts or what a reasonable person might think.

116. The Panel noted the evidence of the Registrant that he must have walked past Colleague A in the outpatient reception prior to making the comment. The Panel therefore considered that the Registrant had Colleague A’s appearance and characteristics in his mind when he was making the comment.

117. The Panel noted that the Registrant had stated in his evidence that he was referring to Colleague A’s hair, however when the comment was discussed among his colleagues at the relevant time, he accepted saying the words “I wouldn’t say a white person looked like Tina Turner”. The Panel considered that the Registrant must therefore have been referring or had in mind Colleagues A’s race when he made the comment. Indeed, the Panel took into consideration the fact that the Registrant accepted this point in cross examination.

118. The Panel noted the test considered in Robert Lambert-Simpson v Health and Care Professions Council [2023] EWHC 481 (Admin) that an inappropriate and/or offensive communication will be ‘racially motivated’ if two conditions are satisfied:
(i) the act in question must have a purpose behind it which at least in significant part is referrable to race; and
(ii) the act must be done in a way showing hostility or a discriminatory attitude to the relevant racial group

119. The Panel determined that the comment had a purpose behind it which at least in significant part was referrable to race. The Panel considered the purpose of the comment and its relevance to race was encapsulated in the Registrant’s subsequent comment “I wouldn’t say a white person looked like Tina Turner”. The Registrant was aware of Colleague A’s characteristics when he made the comment, and the comment sparked a discussion among his colleagues which related to race. As such the Panel concluded the purpose of the comment was in significant part referrable to race.

120. The Panel next went on to consider whether the comment “we’ve got a Tina Turner look alike” was made in a way which showed hostility or a discriminatory attitude to a relevant racial group.

121. The Panel noted that the Registrant has done a lot of subsequent reflection on his actions and accepts in hindsight that his comments were discriminatory in nature. He has apologised for these actions and sought to re-educate himself.

122. The Panel considered that the issue before them however was whether at the relevant time the Registrant’s state of mind or intention which was based on their individual perspective, beliefs, thoughts, and intentions, was to act in a way that showed hostility or a discriminatory attitude toward a racial group.

123. The Panel considered the guidance provided by Fordham J that it is important that a regulatory supervisory authority is able to see an "attitudinal" problem and that hostility can thrive in attempted 'humour', as it can in 'ridicule'. The Panel noted the guidance that the intention of trying to get a "laugh" does not in any way detract from the fact that a comment can be referrable to race and show a hostility and/or a discriminatory attitude.

124. The Panel determined that the Registrant knew that the comment about Colleague A was derogatory, and this was indeed pointed out to him in the context of the conversation. The Panel considered that although the comment alone namely “we’ve got a Tina Turner look alike” may not in some contexts be considered hostile or discriminatory, in the context that it was said by the Registrant, the Panel considered that it was hostile and discriminatory because the Registrant was making derogatory comments about Colleague A, which were based on her race.

125. The Panel considered the Registrant’s response to the concern, namely that he did not realise the significance of his comments until they were raised with him subsequently by RS and AQ. The Panel noted that the Registrant had explained his comments were an attempt at dark humour. The Panel considered in this the Registrant must be suggesting that the comments were made to make light of a subject matter that is generally considered taboo. In this, the Panel considered however that the subject matter must have been race related.

126. In the context of the conversation and taking into consideration the subsequent comments made by the Registrant the Panel considered the comment “we’ve got a Tina Turner look alike” was made by the Registrant in a way that showed a hostile and discriminatory attitude towards Colleague A.

127. The Panel therefore found the comment in Particular 1(a) to be “racially motivated”.

128. In respect of Particular 1(b) the Panel considered the context and circumstances of the comment.

129. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s explanation that he was not thinking about race when he made this comment. The Panel considered that the Registrant was clear in his evidence that the comment referred to the George Floyd incident, which led to the Black Lives Matter movement and is known internationally for creating discussions in respect of systematic racism. Prior to making the comment the Registrant had used the words, “I wouldn’t say a white person looked like Tina Turner”. The Panel concluded that it was very clear that at the relevant time of the comment the Registrant had in mind Colleague A’s race. The Panel therefore considered that the comment was clearly in significant part is referrable to race.

130. The Panel noted that the comment was about the act of placing a knee to the neck of a person of a specified race. The Panel considered that such a comment demonstrated hostility or a discriminatory attitude towards a racial group, whether or not it was said in jest or otherwise.

131. The Panel considered that comment represented a hostility that can thrive in attempted 'humour'. It further considered that the Registrant would have been aware that the comment was discriminatory in nature at the relevant time, and it is for this reason that he attempted to describe the comment as dark humour.

132. The Panel therefore found the comment in Particular 1(b) to be “racially motivated”.

Decision on Grounds

133. The Panel next considered the statutory grounds. Having found Particulars 1 and 2 of the Allegation proved the Panel went on to consider whether this amounted to misconduct. The Panel took into consideration the submissions of both parties. A summary of the submissions is set out below.

Submissions from the HCPC on misconduct

134. Ms Warwick on behalf of the HCPC submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was serious, it fell short of the standards reasonably expected from a registered practitioner and amounted to misconduct.

135. In relation to both those matters found proved in Particular 1 and in Particular 2, Ms Warwick referred the Panel to the relevant HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. She submitted that the following Standards were engaged and had been breached by the Registrant:

Standard 1.5 You must not discriminate against service users, carers or colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships or the care, treatment or other services that you provide.
Standard 1.6 You must challenge colleagues if you think that they have discriminated against, or are discriminating against, service users, carers and colleagues.
Standard 1.7 You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.
Standard 2.1 You must be polite and considerate.
Standard 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.
Standard 9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

136. Ms Warwick also referred the Panel to the Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers She submitted that the following Standards were engaged and had been breached by the Registrant:

Standard 2 Be able to practice within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession
Standard 2.1 Understand the need to act in the best interest of service users at all times
Standard 2.3 Understand the need to respect and uphold the rights, dignity, values, and autonomy of service users including their role in the diagnostic and therapeutic process and in maintaining health and wellbeing
Standard 5 Be aware of the impact of culture, equality, and diversity on practice
Standard 6 Be able to practise in a non-discriminatory manner
Standard 8 Be able to communicate effectively
Standard 9.2 Understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent professional and collaboratively
Standard 11 Be able to reflect on and review practice

Submissions from the Registrant on misconduct

137. Mr Pataky on the Registrant’s behalf acknowledged that the matters were serious, and that the Registrant’s conduct fell short of what was proper in the circumstances. He stated that the Registrant had admitted misconduct at the outset of the hearing.

138. Mr Pataky requested that the Panel take into account of the nature of the comments made, which were admitted. He submitted that the Registrant has acknowledged that this was misconduct and that it was serious. Mr Pataky submitted that three years had passed since the events. He noted that the conduct was isolated in nature and came from a single conversation. He requested the Panel view the comments in the context of an otherwise unblemished career. He noted that the comment occurred in little more than a moment and were made in the context of a conversation between a small number of relatively senior Band 6 colleagues.

139. Mr Pataky noted that there was no suggestion of any patients being present or even nearby and no suggestion that at any stage the Registrant has been discriminatory towards patients or shown a lack of collaboration

140. The Panel then went on to consider the statutory ground of misconduct in relation to Particular 1(a) and 1(b) and Particular 2, and whether there had been a serious departure from the standards to be expected of a Radiographer and therefore serious misconduct. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who referred the Panel to the principles in cases such as Roylance v GMC [2000] 1 AC 311, Nandi v GMC [2004] EWHC 2317 (Admin). In considering grounds, the Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Warwick and Mr Pataky, all relevant evidence, and its prior Findings on Facts.

141. Having considered the submissions the Panel determined that the Registrant had breached the following Standards of conduct, performance and ethics as a Registrant with the HCPC, namely

Standard 1.5 You must not discriminate against service users, carers or colleagues by allowing your personal views to affect your professional relationships or the care, treatment or other services that you provide.
Standard 9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

142. Further the Panel considered that the Registrant had breach the following Standards of Proficiency for Radiographers;

Standard 2 Be able to practice within the legal and ethical boundaries of their profession
Standard 5 be aware of the impact of culture, equality, and diversity on practice
Standard 6 be able to practise in a non-discriminatory manner
Standard 8 be able to communicate effectively
Standard 9.2 understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent professional and collaboratively
Standard 11 be able to reflect on and review practice.

143. The Panel acknowledged that since the incident occurred the Registrant has taken significant steps to re-educate himself. However, the Panel were satisfied that the proved allegations amounted to a significant failure to adhere to the standards expected of a Radiographer.

144. The Panel considered that the Registrants conduct was serious. The Registrant made discriminatory comments in respect of his colleague and made derogatory comments in reference to the George Floyd incident, which involved the murder of a black man in America, led to the Black Lives Matter movement and is known internationally for creating discussions in respect of systematic racism.

145. The Panel considered that the conduct was serious. The comments were highly offensive and could have led to a break down in trust among his colleagues or wider team, which may have affected the safe and effective delivery of care.

146. The Panel was satisfied that members of the public and profession would be shocked at the Registrant’s comments and in all the circumstances the Panel determined that all of the facts found proved amounted to misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

147. Having found that the statutory ground of misconduct had been made out, the Panel moved on to consider the question of impairment.

Submissions from the HCPC on impairment

148. Ms Warwick referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on Fitness to Practise Impairment. She submitted that the Panel were required to consider both the personal and public components as set out in the HCPTS Practice Note Fitness to Practise Impairment.

149. Ms Warwick submitted that whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired was a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement. She referred the Panel to the approach formulated by the CHRE V NMC (and Grant) [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin) in relation to the consideration of impairment of fitness to practise. She submitted that although the Panel was considering the Registrant’s current fitness to practise, the Panel was required to take into account the way the Registrant had acted in the past as a way to assess this. The Panel was entitled to take into account any evidence of insight and practical targeted remediation undertaken by the Registrant which might suggest that any past impairment had now been resolved, or otherwise.

150. Ms Warwick acknowledged that the Registrant had provided evidence of a number of courses and positive steps that he had undertaken to try and educate and address the areas of concern. She noted that the Registrant also made admissions to certain aspects of the allegation immediately upon being confronted. Ms Warwick submitted that it was for the Panel to consider the extent to which the Registrant’s evidence in examination in chief and cross examination showed insight in relation to the impact of his words on others as well as the impact upon himself.

151. Ms Warwick submitted that it was accepted on behalf of the Council that this was an isolated incident. She noted that no other concerns were raised before or since. Ms Warwick submitted that the Panel would need to consider the impact on the public and the need to maintain professional standards and public confidence in the profession. She submitted that the public is entitled to expect registrants to be professionally competent and act with decency, honesty and integrity. The public should also be able to rely on the process to be robust, fair and transparent.

152. Ms Warwick submitted that the Panel would need to consider the risk of harm in its assessment in relation to risk to both colleagues and patients. Ms Warwick accepted that patients and/or service users were not affected by the incident. She stated however that the Panel would need to consider a risk of harm to colleagues. She submitted that this assessment would be based upon the Panel’s assessment of insight.

Submissions from the Registrant on impairment

153. Mr Pataky on behalf of the Registrant referred the Panel to the case of CHRE V NMC (and Grant) [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin) which emphasises the fundamental need to protect the public and uphold proper standards of conduct to maintain public confidence in the profession. He submitted that the Registrant accepted impairment on the public component and noted that this was highly significant and demonstrated his understanding and insight into his failings.

154. Mr Pataky noted that the Panel’s findings were serious, and the comments were accepted as inappropriate at the outset by the Registrant when confronted by RS and AQ. Mr Pataky noted the comment in respect of the George Floyd incident being highly offensive. However, he asked that the Panel take into consideration the context of the comment which occurred in a singular conversation, with the comment being made in response to a light-hearted but hypothetical suggestion from a colleague that there would be a fight.

155. Mr Pataky noted that from the outset of the case the Registrant has shown significant remorse and regret. Mr Pataky noted the Registrant’s horror upon realising the seriousness of his words and submitted that this was supported by the witnesses called by the HCPC. Mr Pataky noted that the incident has had a substantial impact on the Registrant, affecting his self-perception. He noted that over the last two and a half to three years, he has consistently demonstrated regret and taken full responsibility for his actions.

156. Mr Pataky noted that in assessing insight, the Panel should consider the fact that the Registrant admitted to his words at the outset and was fully open about what had happened, even before the matter came to the attention of the HCPC. He stated that although one allegation was denied, the Registrant is entitled to contest allegations without this being counted against him at the impairment or sanction stage. Mr Pataky referred to the case of Towuaghantse v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 681 (Admin) which highlights these issues.

157. Mr Pataky submitted that the essence of the case, including the inappropriateness of the Registrant’s words was never disputed. He submitted that denial of one allegation should not be equated with a lack of insight, especially as the Registrant sought to explain his perspective during his evidence.

158. Mr Pataky relied upon the case of Amao v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 147 (Admin) which distinguished between failing to have insight into past misconduct and failing to understand the need to avoid similar situations in the future. He submitted that the Registrant has acknowledged the seriousness of his comments, recognises that they are deeply offensive, and has expressed that he constantly reflects on how others may perceive him.

159. Mr Pataky noted that the Registrant fully accepts the Panel's findings, including the seriousness of the misconduct and its impact on public confidence. He stated that this supported a positive assessment of his insight.

160. Mr Pataky noted that since the incident, there have been no similar concerns which have arisen. Mr Pataky referred the Panel to testimonials from current and past employers describe the Registrant as polite, respectful, and of exemplary behaviour. He stated these testimonies provide explicit confirmation of his positive conduct over the past two years.

161. Mr Pataky noted that the Registrant has become "hyper-aware" of his words and has clearly learned a difficult lesson from these events. He submitted that this transformation is further supported by the absence of any recurrence of similar issues, a significant factor in assessing future risk.

162. Mr Pataky noted that the Registrant has engaged with the process constructively, taking full responsibility for his actions and seeking ways to remedy the situation. He submitted that this remorse was consistent throughout his interactions with colleagues, the trust, and during these proceedings.

163. Mr Pataky noted that during his suspension and subsequent employment, the Registrant pursued extensive training, including around 40 hours on diversity, inclusion, unconscious bias, and related topics. He submitted that these courses directly addressed the issues raised by the misconduct findings. Mr Pataky noted that the course demonstrated the Registrant’s commitment to remediation and his resolve to learn from his mistakes.

164. Mr Pataky noted that the testimonials provided from senior professionals who have known the Registrant for years paint a comprehensive picture of his professionalism and integrity. He submitted that the testimonials consistently describe the comments as entirely out of character. He further noted that the Registrant’s current employers confirmed his respectful and considerate nature, with no concerns regarding his behaviour or integrity.

165. Mr Pataky submitted that this was an incident that was isolated in nature, occurring during a career spanning over a decade. He submitted that this was an uncharacteristic lapse of judgment rather than an attitude indicative of ongoing risk.

166. Regarding public protection grounds, Mr Pataky submitted that there is no evidence of any similar issues. He submitted the Registrant had positive testimonials and consistent positive feedback, combined with proactive remediation. As such Mr Pataky submitted that there is a low risk of repetition. He argued that the Registrant’s fitness to practice is not currently impaired on public protection grounds.

167. However, Mr Pataky stated that the public interest consideration remains. He acknowledged on behalf of the Registrant that a finding of impairment may still be necessary to uphold public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards, due to the seriousness of the comments. He noted that the Registrant has acknowledged this aspect and recognised the importance of maintaining confidence in his profession. He submitted his acceptance of the findings on public interest grounds, further supports the view that he fully understands the implications of his actions.

Decision
168. Having found the statutory ground of misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired as a result of the misconduct. In doing so it took into account the oral evidence from the Registrant and the testimonials provided by the Registrant, together with the submissions made by the parties and all the documents provided.

169. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note “Fitness to Practise Impairment” dated November 2023. The separate personal and public components were set out, as were the questions to be asked as formulated by Dame Janet Smith in the Fifth Shipman report. Information from the cases of Cheatle v General Medical Council [2009] EWHC 645 (Admin), Zygmunt v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 2643 (Admin), CHRE V NMC (and Grant) [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin), Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 158 (Admin) and Sawati v General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 283 was summarised.

170. The Panel considered that in all the circumstance the Registrant’s misconduct was remediable. The Panel went on to consider whether the misconduct has been remedied.

171. The Panel were provided with a significant number of positive testimonials from a multitude of the Registrant’s colleagues, who were aware of the allegations. Throughout these testimonials the Registrant was described as professional, compassionate and having shown sincere remorse. All of the individuals who provided testimonial and indeed all of the witnesses called on behalf of the HCPC described the incident as out of character for the Registrant and noted that he was dismayed when confronted by his behaviour and immediately offered an apology.

172. The Panel noted that the Registrant throughout his evidence acknowledged the seriousness of his comments and explained they were horrendously inappropriate and made him “feel sick”. He made clear to the Panel that he felt embarrassed and ashamed by his behaviour.

173. In the absence of any evidence of similar incidents, the Panel concluded that the Registrant’s comments were isolated in nature and out of character.

174. The Panel was of the view that the conduct was remediable, and that the Registrant had demonstrated a significant commitment to ensuring that such an incident would not be repeated.

175. The Panel considered that the Registrant has completed a significant amount of re-education which amounts in total to around 40 hours of work. The Registrant has continually reflected on his behaviour from the time of the incident, and throughout this hearing. The Registrant has accepted personal responsibility for his actions, despite disputing the issue in respect of his motivation.

176. The Panel were impressed with the remediation work undertaken by the Registrant. It did not identify any further steps the Registrant might take to mitigate the risk of repetition of his conduct. Further it considered the testimonials of his current employer who have expressed they have no concerns in respect of his understanding of discrimination and equality and diversity.

177. The Panel considered the insight demonstrated by the Registrant. The Panel noted that at a very early stage the Registrant made admissions to the comments, and although the Registrant disputed the motivation behind them, he has throughout the proceedings demonstrated genuine remorse and has adequately reflected and continues to reflect on his past behaviour.

178. In evidence the Registrant did not seek to minimise the seriousness of his comments, and while he did not accept the motivations behind the comments, he was able to articulate the impact of his comments and demonstrated full and complete insight into his misconduct. Further, the Registrant has from the outset of the case and during submissions to the panel accepted that his actions amounted to misconduct and that he was impaired on the public component. The Panel considered that this was highly relevant and clearly demonstrated the Registrant’s insight into his conduct.

179. Having taken into account the insight demonstrated by the Registrant, his remedial action, and the fact that his conduct was isolated in nature and out of character, the Panel concluded that it was highly unlikely that he would repeat similar conduct in the future.

180. In the three years since the comments were made there has been no further incidents, and the Registrant has continued to work without issue. Further, the Registrant’s colleagues are aware of the incident and have provided highly positive testimonials in respect of his character. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the Registrant does not present a risk to members of the public. The Panel therefore found that, as far as the personal component was concerned, the Registrant’s fitness to practise was not currently impaired.

181. The Panel then moved on to consider the public component. It took the view that the Registrant breached a fundamental tenet of the Radiographers profession, and that the principle of practicing in a non-discriminatory manner underpinned the profession. It was mindful that the role of the Regulator is not to punish for past misdeeds, but it was also mindful of the necessity of regulation to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession.

182. It was the finding of the Panel that the Registrant had made racially motivated comments in respect of colleague A which were discriminatory, derogatory and highly offensive. The Panel considered that at the time that the Registrant did this, the Registrant was fully aware that his comments were in relation to race. The Panel took the view that a registered professional always knows what their responsibilities are.

183. The Panel had already found a serious breach of the standards. The Panel determined that what the Registrant had done was fundamentally wrong, and that he demonstrated a discriminatory attitude in the comments that he made. The Registrant at the time of the conduct failed to recognise its severity and that he had breached a fundamental tenet of the profession. The conduct itself led to an anonymous complaint in which colleagues were understandably concerned about the views he had expressed and his suitability to be part of an interviewing panel. In these circumstances, the Panel took the view that this was a grave breach of professional standards, and that not to make a finding of impairment in such circumstances would bring both the profession and the Regulator into disrepute.

184. The conduct would seriously undermine confidence in the profession. A member of the public, aware of all the circumstances of the case, would expect such a finding to be made. The Panel therefore found that the public component was engaged, and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on this basis.

Decision on Sanction

185. Following the Panel’s decision on misconduct and impairment, which was handed down on the 14 February 2025, the Panel reconvened on 31 March 2025 to hear submissions and determine sanction. Prior to hearing submissions on what, if any, sanction to impose, the Registrant provided the Panel with an updated testimonial from his manager, as follows;
“I can confirm that I am aware that the hearing is now at the sanction stage. I have been fully updated with a copy of the panels decision on facts and impairment. Chris continues to be employed as a Quality Manger where he is a well-respected member of a diverse team. Chris has always been open, honest and remorseful. He continues to demonstrate the Trusts values of compassion, openness and excellence. Whilst the stresses of this process have had a huge impact on him he is integral in supporting the governance within our department which is essential especially at this time of staffing pressures and cancer back-logs. His calm and supportive manner help keep the team on track. He is a line manager and supportive to his staff who are from a diverse background. There have been zero areas for concern during his employment.”
The Panel took the document into account.

186. Ms Warwick reminded the Panel of the general principles of sanction, addressed the question of mitigating and aggravating factors, and referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy (2019). She noted that there were no aggravating features in the case and reminded the Panel of its findings in respect of remorse, remediation and apology. Ms Warwick noted that the Panel had considered these matters in their finding in respect of impairment and requested that the Panel weigh this in the balance. Ms Warwick took the Panel through the available sanction options and noted that the HCPC’s position was that the sanction to be imposed was a matter for the Panel’s own judgement.

187. Mr Pataky made oral submissions to the Panel on behalf of the Registrant. He highlighted the Registrant’s testimonial and noted that the Registrant continues to be employed in the same role and has been open and honest about his situation. Mr Pataky submitted all of the testimonials produced on behalf of the Registrant touched on the impact that these proceedings have had upon him. Mr Pataky noted the critical role that the Registrant plays within his department, which is subject to staffing pressures and backlogs. Mr Pataky further noted that there continues to be no areas of concern in respect of the Registrant’s practice. Mr Pataky also noted that no conditions had been sought by the HCPC up to the Hearing.

188. Mr Pataky emphasized the principle of proportionality and submitted that a caution order was the most appropriate sanction in this case. He noted that the incident was isolated in nature and occurred over three years ago and this demonstrated a sustained period in which the Registrant had practised without repetition. In respect of the public interest Mr Pataky noted that the Panel may feel that taking no further action would not be appropriate, given its findings in respect of misconduct and impairment.

189. Mr Pataky noted that the Registrant had no prior fitness to practise history. Mr Pataky addressed the Panel in respect of the mitigating and aggravating features of this case in line with the sanction policy. He noted the Panel's finding in respect of the Registrant’s extensive remediation, his early admissions to matters and his remorse. He referred the Panel to its findings at paragraph 178, namely that the Registrant has demonstrated full and complete insight into his misconduct.

190. In respect to the aggravating factors in this case Mr Pataky noted that these did not apply to this case. He referred the Panel to its findings that the misconduct in this case was highly unlikely to be repeated.

191. Mr Pataky referred the panel to the case of Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Health and Care Professions Council, Roberts [2020] EWHC 1906 (Admin). He explained this case related to a racial abuse allegation in which the panel had made no finding of impairment. He emphasised that the court found it was appropriate for Panels to look at case on a fact specific basis and emphasise the case was relevant in respect of the Panel’s findings and assessment of public interest for the purpose of sanction.

192. Mr Pataky emphasised that the most appropriate sanction in this case would be one of a caution order, he submitted a caution order of three to four years would reflect the seriousness of the misconduct found by the Panel and would adequately address public interest.

193. Mr Pataky submitted that conditions of practise were unlikely to be workable or practicable in this particular case, on the basis that the Panel had found that the Registrant had fully remediated the concern.

194. Mr Pataky submitted the suspension would be disproportionate in all the circumstances of this case; however he submitted if the Panel were not with him on this submission, a suspension of two months would appropriately mark the seriousness of this case.

195. Mr Pataky emphasised that it was his primary submission that a caution order was the most appropriate order in this case. He submitted such an order would uphold the public interest and ensure that a highly skilled and committed Registrant was able to remain employed within their profession at an essential time in which the profession is under pressure and there are numerous cancer backlogs. Mr Pataky submitted a caution order would mark severity of the offence and would also be the most proportionate order in all the circumstances.

196. The Panel took into account the HCPC Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

197. The Panel bore in mind that sanction is a matter for its own independent judgement and that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to uphold the public interest. Further, any sanction must be proportionate, so that any order it makes is the least restrictive order that would uphold the public interest.

198. The Panel took into account the Registrant’s reflections and testimonials. It took into account the Registrant’s made early admissions in respect of what was said by him and only contested his motivations in this case.

199. The Panel also accepted, the further testimonial since the decision on impairment, in the knowledge that the author of the testimonial before it was fully aware of the Panel’s findings.

200. The Panel was of the view that the following were mitigating factors:
i. Full insight and remediation demonstrated, and remorse expressed,
ii. Positive testimonials which speak highly of the Registrant,
iii. A sustained period spanning three years since the incident in which no further concerns have been raised as to the Registrant’s attitude.

201. The Panel was of the view that there were no aggravating factors in this case. While the Registrant’s behaviour was discriminatory, the Panel reviewed with care the section within the Sanction Policy on Discrimination at paragraphs 63-66 and considered that none of the serious consequences outlined in paragraph 65 of the Policy were applicable or engaged in this case.

202. The Panel took into account all of the evidence and the submissions before it, as well as the mitigating factors.

203. The Panel was considered its previous finding in respect of the Registrant’s insight and remediation and its determinations that there was a very low risk of repetition in this case. The Registrant is clearly well thought of by his colleagues, he has worked for a significant period of time without concern and continues to be a well-respected member of a diverse team.

204. While the Panel concluded that the Registrant is not impaired on the personal component. The Registrant’s actions were serious and accordingly this was not an appropriate case to take no further action or consider mediation, since neither would reflect the seriousness of the misconduct found proved.

205. The Panel therefore went on to consider a Caution Order. The Sanction Policy suggests a Caution Order might be appropriate in cases in which:
• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;
• there is a low risk of repetition;
• the registrant has shown good insight; and
• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

206. The Panel is satisfied that the misconduct in this case was isolated, essentially a one-off and very much out of character. It could not, however, be characterised as relatively minor in nature. As discriminatory behaviour is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly. That said, the Panel is now satisfied, following the information received throughout the hearing and following its findings on misconduct and impairment, that there is a low risk of repetition, the Registrant has shown outstanding insight and has undertaken significant and appropriate remediation.

207. However, in light of the seriousness of the behaviour, the Panel went on to consider more onerous sanctions before coming to a decided position.

208. Accordingly, the Panel went on to consider whether to place conditions of practice on the Registrant’s registration. The Sanctions Policy states that before imposing conditions a Panel should be satisfied that:
• the issues which the conditions seek to address are capable of correction;
• there is no persistent or general failure which would prevent the registrant from doing so;
• appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the registrant can be expected to comply with them; and
• a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether those conditions have or are being met.

209. There are no clinical concerns in this case and thus no issues that could be addressed by way of conditions. There has never been any question about the Registrant’s skills as a clinician. The Registrant has also demonstrated full insight and remediation in respect of the concerns. The Panel therefore considered that there were no conditions of practice which were practicable or workable.

210. The Panel therefore looked at the guidance in the Sanctions Policy about when a Suspension Order might be the appropriate sanction. This is a case in which, on its face, a Suspension Order could potentially be justified. However, in light of the extensive insight and remediation demonstrated by the Registrant, the Panel formed the view that such a sanction would be wholly disproportionate, in the specific circumstances of this case. A period of suspension, however short, would have a profound effect on both the Registrant and his family.

211. Furthermore, the context and circumstances of the misconduct had to be taken into account. This was an isolated instance and there was no pattern of behaviour. None of the factors identified at paragraph 65 of the Sanction Policy were present. Further, the Registrant has since shown extensive insight and demonstrated significant remediation. The Panel has already indicated that it considers there to be a very low risk that he would ever behave in this way again.

212. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would be wholly disproportionate in this case. The Panel thus returned to the Sanctions Policy and noted the following guidance:
“A caution order should be considered in cases where the nature of the allegations mean that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a suspension of practice order would be disproportionate. In these cases, panels should provide a clear explanation of why it has chosen a non-restrictive sanction, even though the panel may have found there to be a risk of repetition (albeit low).”

213. The Panel considered this case fell within that guidance and that accordingly a Caution Order would be appropriate. The Panel has chosen a non-restrictive sanction because there is a very low risk to the public. This incident has been described (including by the HCPC’s witnesses) as out of character and occurred once in an otherwise blemish-free career as a Radiographer. There are no concerns about the Registrant’s clinical skills and the testimonials attest to his professionalism. Importantly, he has demonstrated full insight into his behaviour and the risk of repetition has thereby been significantly diminished.

214. Accordingly, the Panel determined that a Caution Order was the most appropriate order in this case. The Panel therefore makes a Caution Order.

215. The Panel considered that the order should be in place for 4 years to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and uphold the public interest.

216. The Registrant should be in no doubt that any finding of current impairment by his regulatory body is a serious matter, and he should not take this Caution Order lightly.

That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Christopher Sharpe with a caution which is to remain on the register for a period of 4 year(s) from the date this order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal

You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

History of Hearings for Christopher Sharpe

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
31/03/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Caution
10/02/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard