William Smethurst

Preliminary Matters

Notice and Proceeding in Absence

1. The Panel was satisfied that notice of today’s hearing had been properly served on 1 March 2025 on the Registrant at his registered email address with the HCPC.

2. The Panel considered Ms Khorassani’s application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself, that it was in the public interest to proceed and that there was minimal disadvantage to the Registrant in doing so. He had responded to the notice of hearing indicating that he would not be attending, was unwell and did not wish to be contacted further, requesting in an email to the HCPC of 1 March 2025 that: “There be no contact made to me or my previous representative in future under any circumstances. If you wish to discuss anything with me, including a reply to this email, I would ask this be only via a phone call…. I reiterate, I do not wish for anyone from HCPC or Capsticks to be in direct contact with me again for any reason, including my previous representative, other than by phone call and it is absolutely necessary”.

3. The Panel is aware that its discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with the care. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 which makes clear that the first question the Panel should ask is whether all reasonable efforts have been taken to serve the Registrant with notice. Thereafter, if the Panel is satisfied as to notice, the discretion to proceed must be exercised having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Registrant being a prime consideration, but balanced with fairness to the HCPC and the wider public interest.

4. The Panel decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence as it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. In reaching this decision, the Panel has noted the Registrant has specifically asked not to be contacted unless “absolutely necessary”. He has not asked for an adjournment. The Panel balanced fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the public interest and concluded that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself. The Panel also took account of the fact that this is a mandatory review. In these circumstances the Panel was satisfied that it is fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

Background

5. The Registrant was employed as a Band 7 Radiographer in the Computed Tomography (“CT”) department at Blackpool Victoria Hospital (“the Hospital”) within Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) from December 2020.

6. The referral relates to a number of concerns raised anonymously with the Registrant’s employer about his conduct which led to an internal investigation. During the course of that investigation, two photographs were provided to the investigator via the Trust’s Freedom to Stand Up Guardian. Each of the photographs showed a male, dressed in burgundy scrubs in two of the Hospital’s clinical room, exposing his genitals. It is alleged that taking the photographs was sexually motivated.

7. On 23 June 2022, the Registrant was interviewed in relation to the allegations. When asked whether he had taken any sexually explicit photographs at work, the Registrant denied having done so “to his knowledge”. The photographs were then provided to the Registrant, who only then admitted that they were of him. It is alleged that the Registrant’s denial was dishonest.

8. The Trust initiated an investigation into the Registrant’s conduct and the Registrant was referred to the HCPC on 1 September 2022.

9. The panel at the substantive hearing in May and June 2024 found the Allegation proved, found misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise and it imposed a sanction of a nine month Suspension Order. This is the first review of that substantive Order.

10. The panel at the substantive hearing made the following findings in relation to impairment of fitness to practice:

“The Panel considered the Registrant’s taking of the photographs was a pre- meditated deliberate act for his own sexual motivation. The Panel has determined that this occurred on two occasions on two different locations and had the potential to cause emotional harm to colleagues and service users. The Registrant’s conduct only came to light when concerns were raised anonymously, and copies of the photographs sent to the Trust. The Panel further determined that the Registrant’s misconduct in taking the photographs was compounded by his deliberate dishonesty in denying that he had taken them. The Panel has determined that he denied taking the photographs for his own benefit, as he was unaware that the Trust had copies of the photographs and by his denial sought to have the concerns found not proved.

The Panel considered that the misconduct in taking the explicit photographs for sexual motivation was serious, had the potential to cause emotional harm to colleagues and service users, but was remediable. However, the Panel considered that other than refer to the nature of the relationship he was then in and that it was common place to take explicit photographs, the Registrant had failed to address why he deliberately chose to take such photographs whilst on duty, in uniform and in clinical areas on two occasions. The Panel determined that the Registrant sought to minimise his action and had not demonstrated insight into the potential harm to colleagues and service users that could result from such conduct. The Panel further determined that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate full insight into the nature and extent of his conduct found proved in Particulars 1 and 2 or the consequences of his conduct on service users, colleagues and public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator. In these circumstances, the Panel also determined that the Registrant had demonstrated minimal insight into the core elements of the misconduct found proved in Particulars 1 and 2, had not remediated this misconduct and there remained a likelihood of similar misconduct in the future.

The Panel further determined that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct as found proved in particulars 3 and 4 was pre-meditated, that he had sought to deny the primary allegation and that his position before the Panel in respect of Particulars 3 and 4 was a blatant and manufactured lie. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was serious, albeit not at the most serious end of the scale of dishonesty. As such the Panel determined that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct was remediable, albeit with some difficulty…the Panel concluded that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate any significant insight into the nature and extent of his dishonest conduct or the consequences of his dishonest conduct on colleagues and public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator. In these circumstances, the Panel determined that the Registrant had not remediated his dishonest conduct and there remained a likelihood of similar dishonest conduct being repeated in the future.

The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant was currently impaired in relation to the personal component…The Panel determined that given the nature of the Registrants misconduct involving taking explicit photographs whilst on duty, in uniform in a clinical area for sexual motivation and his subsequent dishonesty that public confidence in the profession and the HCPC as a regulator would be undermined if there was no finding of impairment. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant was currently impaired in relation to the public component.

The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired both in respect of the personal and public components”.

11. The panel at the substantive hearing found as follows in respect of sanction:

“The Panel had decided that the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics. The Panel has found that the Registrant has shown limited insight into the regulatory concerns arising from the sexually motivated taking of explicit pictures at work. The Panel considered that there is evidence to suggest that the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy these failings. The Panel considered that, at this time the Registrant had failed to demonstrate insight into his dishonest conduct and the regulatory concerns arising from it. However, the Panel also considered that there remained the possibility of the Registrant reflecting on the Panel’s decision and developing such insight. The Panel considered that if the Registrant developed such insight, then he would be likely to be able to resolve or remedy these failings. The Panel has also concluded that the Registrant’s dishonest conduct is not at the most serious end of the scale of dishonest conduct.

In all these circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order would address the regulatory concerns identified, reflect the seriousness of the case and address the issues of public protection and public interest”.

HCPC Submissions

12. Ms Khorassani summarised the case and the background. She submitted that, other than the 1 March 2025 email, the Registrant had not engaged since the substantive hearing in 2024. She reminded the Panel of its role and its powers on review. It must review the Registrant’s current fitness to practise. She submitted that the Panel should have regard to whether there is evidence of insight and remediation and whether the concerns found at the substantive hearing have been sufficiently addressed. She referred to the guidance in the case of Abrahaem v GMC 2008 EWHC 183.

13. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Panel should also have regard to the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, and submitted that the Registrant had breached standards 6.1, 6.2 and 9.1. The Panel should be mindful of the personal and public interest components of impairment.

14. Ms Khorassani submitted, given the lack of any new information from the Registrant, that the HCPC was seeking that the Panel impose a further Suspension Order for 12 months as the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained currently impaired.

Decision

15. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who reminded the Panel of its powers and the importance of reviewing the Registrant’s current fitness to practise. If the Panel makes a finding of current impairment it must then consider sanction and have in mind the HCPC Sanctions Guidance. It should be mindful of the need to act proportionately and to apply the least restrictive sanction in order to protect the public and the wider public interest.

16. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the HCPC Practice Note on Impairment and the guidance in Abrahaem v GMC 2008 EWHC 183 which states that a panel should:

• Consider whether all the concerns raised in the original finding of impairment have been sufficiently addressed to the Panel's satisfaction.

• In practical terms there is a persuasive burden on the practitioner at a review to demonstrate that he or she has fully acknowledged why past professional performance was deficient and through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement sufficiently addressed the past impairment.

17. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel to be mindful of the over-arching objectives of the regulator, and the authoritative guidance in CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) on the assessment of current impairment of fitness to practise. This case stressed the central importance of assessing the Registrant’s insight, remediation and an assessment of the risk of repetition.

18. The Panel considered the submissions from the HCPC and all the information before it. The Registrant has not engaged with this process and he had not provided any information to allow the Panel to assess his developing insight, remediation and the risk of repetition. He has not addressed the concerns which included dishonesty linked to the sexual misconduct found.

19. The Panel was therefore provided with nothing to further consider in assessing current impairment of fitness to practice. The decision of the panel in 2024 was clear as to the concerns and the need for the Registrant to demonstrate insight stating he had: “…failed to demonstrate any significant insight into the nature and extent of his dishonest conduct or the consequences of his dishonest conduct on colleagues and public confidence in the profession…” That Panel suggested to the Registrant that a reviewing panel may be assisted by “A critical reflection from the Registrant in relation to the allegation found proved, his misconduct and the regulatory concerns arising from it”.

20. The Panel has no reflection from the Registrant and, indeed, no new information from him about his insight, remediation or his current circumstances.

21. In all the circumstances, and with the guidance in Abrahaem in mind, the Panel decided that there is nothing to suggest any change as regards fitness to practise since the substantive hearing in 2024. There is nothing to reassure the Panel that the risk of harm has, to any extent, been mitigated or reduced. The Panel therefore decided that on both the personal and public interest aspects the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains currently impaired.

22. The Panel therefore next considered what sanction to impose and it was mindful of the HCPC’s Sanctions Guidance.

23. The Panel found that the following aggravating features:

• Continuing lack of evidence of insight and remorse

• Lack of apology and acknowledgement of impact on the reputation of the profession

• No evidence of any continuing professional development to maintain skills and knowledge

24. The Panel found there was a mitigating feature being the indication from the Registrant of underlying health issues which it appears may have made it more difficult for him to engage with this process. There were no clinical or competency concerns.

25. The Panel considered that taking no action or a Caution Order would fail to reflect the seriousness of the findings and the associated risks of harm. The findings are of a nature and gravity that would not be proportionately dealt with by such orders. Such orders would fail to protect the public and fail to maintain public confidence in the profession.

26. The Panel next considered conditions of practice. It was mindful that conditions must be workable, realistic, proportionate and sufficient to protect the public. It considered paragraph 106 – 108 of the HCPC Sanctions Guidance. It found that the lack of insight and the nature of the misconduct coupled with the lack of engagement by the Registrant meant that it was not possible to devise realistic, verifiable and workable conditions of practice that the Panel could be confident the Registrant could or would comply with. Further, the nature and gravity of the misconduct was such that conditions were not liable to sufficiently manage the risks.

27. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. It considered paragraph 121 of the guidance. The misconduct is serious but it is remediable with sufficient and meaningful engagement by the Registrant. The Panel remained concerned as to the persistent lack of insight and lack of engagement but it did not consider that, at this stage, it was proportionate to impose a Striking Off Order.

28. The Panel concluded that a period of further suspension will sufficiently protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession. The nature and gravity of the concerns are not such that any sanction less than strike off would be sufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process.

29. The Panel considered that in all the circumstances it was appropriate to impose a further period of 12 months suspension which will protect the public and wider public interest whilst potentially allowing for the Registrant to engage with this process and demonstrate his fitness to practice.

30. The Panel considered that it would likely greatly assist a future reviewing panel if the Registrant would:

• attend the review hearing;

• provide written, reflective evidence demonstrating his insight, remorse and a clear acknowledgement and understanding of the impact of his misconduct on colleagues, the profession and the public; and

• provide evidence of any continuing professional development to maintain skills and knowledge.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to suspend the name of William Smethurst from the Registrant for a period of 12 months

The Suspension Order imposed today will apply from 19 April 2025, the expiry date of the current Suspension Order.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 19 April 2026.

History of Hearings for William Smethurst