Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing

HCPTS strikes off Martin Duxbury over sexual misconduct and boundary breaches

The HCPTS panel ordered Martin Duxbury's striking off after findings involving sexually motivated communications and boundary breaches. It rejected allegations of blocking a colleague's exit, aggression and booking leave contrary to procedure.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 2 July 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 Martin Duxbury, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA32676).

Decision date: 2 July 2026 · Hearing started 15 June 2026 and ended 2 July 2026

In plain English

The HCPTS panel found that Martin Duxbury committed misconduct involving sexually motivated communications, professional-boundary breaches and racially derogatory language towards colleagues. It ordered striking off, with a separate interim suspension pending appeal. Allegations of blocking a colleague's exit, aggressive conduct towards another colleague and booking leave contrary to procedure were not proved. The panel found continuing impairment and insufficient evidence of meaningful insight or remediation.

Charges

The allegations concerned unprofessional communications and professional-boundary breaches towards colleagues, sexually explicit messages and arrangements for a sexual encounter, racially derogatory language, inappropriate allocation of annual leave, and aggressive conduct towards another colleague.

Findings

The panel found misconduct involving unprofessional communications, professional-boundary breaches, racially derogatory language and sexually motivated conduct towards a colleague. Blocking a colleague's exit (1b), all allegations about the interaction with another colleague (2), and allocating leave contrary to standard procedure (5c) were not proved. Saying a hotel had been booked was proved; actual booking was not the allegation. The panel found current impairment on personal and public grounds, insufficient meaningful insight and remediation, and a real risk of repetition. It ordered striking off, effective after the 28-day appeal period or disposal of any appeal, and a separate interim suspension for up to 18 months pending appeal.

Mitigating factors

a. The Panel noted that the Registrant has no previous fitness to practise history and that he made admissions to some facts in his submissions of 2 June 2026. However, the Panel considered that these admissions were qualified in that they were based on his own account of events and showed no awareness of the effects his actions had on others.

Aggravating factors

a. The case involved sexual misconduct; b. The Registrant’s conduct in respect of Colleague A was sexually motivated, points a and b are very serious attitudinal issues; c. There was abuse of the Registrant’s professional position. There was a clear imbalance of power between the Registrant and both Colleagues A and B; d. The Registrant’s communications with Colleague A (as found in Particular 4b(i) and (ii)) were racially derogatory and (as found in Particular 6a and b) unprofessional; e. Harm was caused to Colleague B [redacted] f. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions had a wider harmful impact on his other colleagues and the Radiotherapy service; g. There was repetition of inappropriate conduct by the Registrant: he was the subject of disciplinary action in respect of the Colleague A issues in 2021, but again entered into inappropriate behaviour towards Colleague B in 2023; h. The Registrant’s behaviour was predatory towards both Colleagues A and B, who were both his juniors. i. The Panel had found that meaningful insight was lacking, in that the Registrant did not demonstrate any reflection or understanding of why he acted as he did in relation to Colleagues A and B, nor has he demonstrated that he has reflected on the impact of his conduct on Colleagues A and B and on his colleagues in the service; j. The Panel had found that there was an absence of evidence of remediation. Most of the volunteering activities to which the Registrant referred in his written submissions were not directed towards the conduct found proved in this case and further, other than the equality training and the Registrant did not provide any independent evidence of this or any other remedial activities or CPD.

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.