Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS panel strikes Adrian P Harding off

The physiotherapist repeatedly administered Botulinum Toxin A without prescriptions or informed written consent and showed no meaningful remediation.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 31 January 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction

What does “struck off the register” mean?

The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.

Concerning Adrian P Harding, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH37504).

Decision date: 31 January 2025 · Hearing started 22 January 2025 and ended 31 January 2025

In plain English

The HCPTS panel struck physiotherapist Adrian P Harding off after finding that he repeatedly administered Botulinum Toxin A without prescriptions, informed written consent or adequate records and dishonestly altered a prescription. The conduct spanned many years and created significant risk. With no meaningful insight, remorse or remediation, the panel found lesser sanctions insufficient.

Charges

Mr Harding administered Botulinum Toxin A to numerous service users without prescriptions, informed written consent or disclosure that prescriptions were absent; kept inadequate treatment records; and altered a prescription without authority. The prescription and alteration conduct was alleged to be dishonest.

Findings

The panel proved the allegations, including dishonesty, and found serious misconduct and current impairment on personal and public grounds. His repeated conduct extended over many years, created significant risk and was accompanied by no meaningful insight, remorse or remediation. Conditions or suspension would not address the concerns, so the panel ordered striking off.

Mitigating factors

There was no evidence that any patient was harmed, although there was a significant risk of harm; there was no known financial motivation, although Mr Harding's non-engagement left the panel without an explanation; there was no subsequent repetition, although an interim suspension imposed soon after referral removed the opportunity to repeat the conduct.

Aggravating factors

A previous HCPC investigating committee had found no case to answer concerning related conduct after accepting that Mr Harding had shown insight and remediation, although the panel said this added little; he administered prescription-only medicine without prescriptions on multiple occasions over about 11 years; he repeatedly acted without patients' written or informed consent; he dishonestly amended a prescription without authority; he repeatedly acted dishonestly by administering the medicine without prescriptions and without telling patients; his experience, seniority, likely authorship of relevant policies and teaching of others meant he knew what was required; he breached numerous professional standards over a prolonged period; he provided no evidence of remediation or insight, showed no willingness to remediate, expressed anger at colleagues who referred him, showed no genuine remorse and disengaged while intending to retire.

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.