Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

Radiographer ordered struck off over attempts to film colleagues changing

Matthew Izett's panel found three sexually motivated attempts proved and a significant risk of repetition, with no demonstrated insight or remediation.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 13 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026

Erasure (struck off the register)

Data last checked: 22 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 Matthew Izett, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA65199).

Decision date: 13 August 2026 · Hearing started 4 August 2026 and ended 13 August 2026

In plain English

Radiographer Matthew Izett was ordered struck off after the panel found that he made sexually motivated attempts to film three colleagues changing without their knowledge. It found serious misconduct and continuing impairment, with no demonstrated insight or remediation and a significant risk of repetition. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal period before the substantive order takes effect.

Charges

Attempting to film three colleagues changing without their knowledge on separate occasions in May 2021, June 2021 and June 2024, with sexual motivation.

Findings

The panel found each alleged attempt and sexual motivation proved, assessing the evidence for each incident separately. It found serious misconduct and impairment on both personal and public components. There was no demonstrated acceptance of the deliberate conduct, meaningful insight or remediation, and a significant repetition risk. It ordered striking off, with a separate interim suspension covering the appeal period subject to a maximum of 18 months.

Aggravating factors

Repetition. The behaviour was not only repeated, but was repeated with regard to Colleague B a short time after Colleague A expressed concern, and repeated with Colleague C against a background of both Colleagues A and B having expressed disquiet. Lack of insight and remediation. Breach of professional boundaries. All three of the complainants had gone into what they believed to be a private space in order to remove their clothing. To that extent they were vulnerable. The Panel acknowledges that the Registrant’s behaviour was not predatory as defined in paragraph 110 of the Sanctions Policy, but in their judgement it was predatory in that the Registrant’s behaviour was premeditated and undertaken for his own sexual gratification. The sexual motivation. Actual harm to the complainants (each of whom was affected by the Registrant’s behaviour) and the potential for service user harm (for the reasons expressed in the Panel’s decision on impairment of fitness to practise).

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.