Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS imposes 11-month suspension on Juan P Saunar after rehearing

The HCPTS panel found impairment on public-interest grounds only, accepting substantial remediation. It imposed an 11-month suspension after considering the earlier quashed order.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 30 July 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 11 months

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.

Concerning Juan P Saunar, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA79078).

Decision date: 30 July 2026 · Hearing started 27 July 2026 and ended 30 July 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel imposed an 11-month suspension on radiographer Juan P Saunar after a rehearing of misconduct proceedings involving colleagues and attempted witness influence. It accepted substantial insight and remediation and found impairment on public-interest grounds only. The panel considered the misconduct serious but concluded that suspension was proportionate, taking account of time served under an earlier order that had been quashed.

Charges

The rehearing followed a High Court consent order concerning earlier proceedings. The case involved sexual harassment and boundary breaches towards colleagues and an attempt to influence a witness. Particular 4 had not been proved at the original hearing and was excluded from the current misconduct findings.

Findings

The panel found serious misconduct and impairment on the public component only. It accepted substantial insight, remediation and evidence of six years without repetition, and found no significant ongoing risk of repetition. It imposed an 11-month suspension after taking account of time previously suspended under an order quashed in December 2025. The public notes record an application for an interim order but do not include its determination, so no interim outcome is inferred.

Mitigating factors

a. Evidence of the Registrant's insight. The Panel found that this was evidenced not only by what he said but by the admissions he made before and at this hearing; i. The Panel however acknowledged that the Registrant's insight was slow to develop at the outset of the HCPC concerns. b. Evidence that the Registrant had taken steps to remediate his conduct, both by appropriate study and by improving his working practice; i. The Panel reminded itself that this was supported by independent evidence submitted by the Registrant such as recent testimonials from superior colleagues and CPD certificates; c. The remorse which the Registrant expressed both orally and in his written submissions, was accepted as genuine by the Panel; d. The evidence that the Registrant had worked for six years since this misconduct, including four years in the United Kingdom, without any repetition of similar misconduct.

Aggravating factors

a. The Registrant's misconduct amounted to a pattern of behaviour which lasted at least three months and involved three colleagues. b. The Registrant's misconduct persisted despite warnings. c. One of the colleagues was a student and therefore vulnerable. d. The Registrant's misconduct extended beyond the sexual harassment of three colleagues and included improperly interfering in the HCPC investigation. e. The Registrants' misconduct gave rise to a real risk of undermining the care provided to patients.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.