Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS suspends Bijoy Bridewin Thomas; dishonesty allegation not proved

The HCPTS panel imposed a 12-month suspension over motoring convictions and disclosure failures. It did not prove dishonesty and imposed interim protection for the appeal process.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 4 September 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year

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 Bijoy Bridewin Thomas, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH136664).

Decision date: 4 September 2026 · Hearing started 2 September 2026 and ended 4 September 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel imposed a 12-month suspension on physiotherapist Bijoy Bridewin Thomas following motoring convictions and failures to disclose them correctly to the regulator. It did not find dishonesty proved. The panel found current impairment, limited insight and insufficient evidence of remediation, but allowed a further opportunity to address the concerns. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal process before the substantive order takes effect.

Charges

The case concerned convictions for drink-driving, driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and driving without insurance, plus failures to disclose the charges and convictions and an inaccurate registration renewal declaration. The panel found these matters proved, but did not prove the alleged dishonesty.

Findings

The panel found impairment by reason of conviction and misconduct on both the personal and public components, citing limited insight, a lack of evidenced remediation and risk of repetition. It expressly rejected the dishonesty allegation. It imposed a 12-month suspension to give a further opportunity to remediate. A separate interim suspension of up to 18 months covers the appeal period or any appeal before the substantive order takes effect.

Mitigating factors

• Remorse – The Panel noted the Registrant had co-operated with the police, pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings and had complied with his community order and disqualification and paid the fine. The Panel also noted the Registrant had made admissions to the allegations found proven in these regulatory proceedings, for which they gave him appropriate credit and had provided a clearer and heartfelt apology for his actions in his submissions at the sanction stage. The Panel did however consider that the Registrant still sought to minimise his behaviour, suggesting it was just a mistake, when the Panel agreed he had made numerous deliberate, reckless and negligent decisions and his actions could not simply be explained as mistakes. The Panel agreed that the Registrant showed acknowledgement of wrongdoing to some degree and shown the beginnings of understanding of the wider impact of his behaviour. • Insight – The Panel agreed that the Registrant showed some limited insight in relation to the impact of his convictions, the potential harm of his behaviour and also the potential harm of not complying with the professional Standards required of him. The Panel felt that, whilst he demonstrated a genuine recognition of how serious his actions were considered by the HCPC and others, he had shown little understanding of how his actions affected the public or why it was considered so serious. The Panel accepted that no actual harm had been caused by the Registrant driving his car having consumed alcohol that put him over the legal limit, however there was clearly a potential for serious harm to be caused by his actions. The Panel agreed, however, that the Registrant showed little empathy for this which was concerning, particularly from a medical professional who should appreciate the risk and potential for harm. • Remediation – The Panel acknowledged the Registrant’s sincerely held belief that he had been healed spiritually, although noted that this belief was not supported by any tangible medical evidence. • Personal circumstances at the time – The Panel noted the Registrant’s account in relation to his personal and business circumstances at the time of these incidents, that it was a turbulent and chaotic time for him which caused him stress and impacted on his well-being. • Testimonials – The Panel also acknowledged the testimonials received from the Registrant’s current employer and chaplain at his place of work. It was also noted that the Registrant had been working in a voluntary position in the last year.

Aggravating factors

• Remediation – The Panel had concerns at the lack of evidence provided by the Registrant of any remediation, or evidence of any steps he had taken to remediate. The Panel noted there was no reflection to explain his actions or acknowledge the impact this had on the public or his profession. There was no evidence of any courses or training or anything to prove he had thought about the seriousness of his behaviour. The Panel acknowledged the testimonials provided, which were helpful and informative, but did not provide evidence of any remediation. The Panel noted the Registrant’s apologies during his submissions, but felt he had still not demonstrated that he understood how serious his actions were and the potential for harm to the public. • Pattern of unacceptable behaviour – The Panel agreed that the initial criminal offences could be considered as one set of incidents and the failures thereafter to notify the HCPC as a second set of incidents. The Panel considered these incidents to demonstrate a pattern of making bad choices that did not meet the ethical standards of someone in the Registrant’s professional position. He had made the choice to drive after drinking and to drive without a licence or valid insurance. He had made the choice not to inform the HCPC of the charge or the convictions and to tick the incorrect box when renewing his registration. He had also made the choice not to read the professional standards required of him, or to understand his professional obligations. By making these choices, he had chosen not to engage with the rules, whether that be the law of the country or the professional standards required of him. • Lack of insight – The Panel agreed that the Registrant had failed to demonstrate insight that he understood the seriousness of his actions or the potential consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. • Potential for harm – The Panel acknowledged that no actual harm had been caused by the Registrant driving after consuming alcohol, but agreed that the potential for harm to the general public as a result of his actions was enormous.

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.