Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS imposes 12-month conditions on physiotherapist Arthur Martial
A panel found repeated professional-boundary breaches and current impairment, while finding the alleged sexual motivation not proved.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 27 September 2024 · Updated 23 September 2026
Conditions on practice (practising with restrictions) — 1 year
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “practising with restrictions” mean?
Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.
Concerning Arthur Martial, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH54082).
Decision date: 27 September 2024 · Hearing started 23 September 2024 and ended 27 September 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that physiotherapist Arthur Martial repeatedly crossed professional boundaries with a vulnerable service user and made two record-keeping errors. It found the boundary conduct was misconduct and that his fitness to practise was currently impaired on public protection and public interest grounds. The panel imposed conditions of practice for 12 months and interim conditions pending any appeal.
Charges
It was alleged that between 20 March 2023 and 11 April 2023 the Registrant failed to maintain professional boundaries with Service User A by unwanted hugging and kissing, offering a private gym session, collecting the service user in his personal vehicle, and making inappropriate comments; communicated using his personal telephone without a clinical reason; failed to maintain accurate and complete records; acted with sexual motivation in relation to the physical contact; committed misconduct; and was impaired.
Findings
The Panel proved Particulars 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii), 1(c), 1(d), and 3(a) and 3(b). It did not prove Particulars 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), or 4. The proved professional-boundary conduct in Particular 1 amounted to misconduct, while the record-keeping findings in Particular 3 did not amount to serious professional misconduct. The Panel found current impairment on both public protection and public interest grounds. It imposed a 12-month Conditions of Practice Order and an interim Conditions of Practice Order on the same terms for up to 18 months pending appeal.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The remorse demonstrated by the Registrant which it considered was genuine. The Registrant took full responsibility for his actions and at no stage did he attempt to minimise the effect on Service User A. The steps the Registrant had implemented to remediate his practice. The Registrant had been working without restriction since the allegations were raised and there have been no further concerns. This was a single Service User complaint in the context of a lengthy career. The Registrant's engagement in these proceedings and his willingness to continue to improve his practice.
Aggravating factors
The breach of professional boundaries was a repeated course of conduct over a number of weeks. There was evidence of some distress to Service User A who was a vulnerable service user. The nature of the conduct was a breach of trust.
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.