Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS suspends Aneesh Daniel for nine months over confidentiality and boundaries
The HCPTS panel found misconduct involving unauthorised access to patient details and sexually motivated contact. It imposed a nine-month suspension with separate interim protection.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 21 August 2026 · Updated 22 September 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 9 months
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 Aneesh Daniel, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA091295).
Decision date: 21 August 2026 · Hearing started 17 August 2026 and ended 21 August 2026
In plain English
The HCPTS panel imposed a nine-month suspension on radiographer Aneesh Daniel after finding he accessed a service user's contact details without authorisation and used them for sexually motivated personal contact. The case also involved failures to report employment restrictions to the regulator. The panel recognised some insight and remediation but found continuing impairment. A separate interim suspension covers the appeal process.
Charges
The case concerned unauthorised access to a service user's confidential contact details, subsequent personal messages and telephone calls, and failures to tell the HCPC promptly about suspension and dismissal by an employer. The panel found the contact sexually motivated.
Findings
The panel found misconduct and current impairment on both personal and public grounds. It acknowledged admissions, engagement, remorse and some remediation but found insight incomplete and a remaining risk of repetition. It imposed a nine-month substantive suspension, with review before expiry. A separate 18-month interim suspension covers the appeal process before the substantive order takes effect.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
a. The Registrant had no previous regulatory findings against him and there had been no reports of any similar behaviour since; b. The Registrant had made full admissions to the facts underpinning the regulatory concerns and had not advanced a positive case in respect of the sexually motivated behaviour; c. The Registrant had engaged with the process, acknowledging from an early stage that his conduct had been wrong and apologising for his actions. He had not sought to deflect or minimise the seriousness of his behaviour; d. The Registrant’s misconduct in respect of Service User A had been a single episode; e. The Registrant had demonstrated some insight, albeit it was incomplete; f. The Registrant had taken some steps and started the process towards remediation.
Aggravating factors
a. Service User A was caused emotional harm by the Registrant’s actions in that she had described herself as ‘shaken’ and ‘distressed’ as a result; b. The sexually motivated misconduct fell in to a serious category, as identified by the HCPTS Policy; and c. The Registrant’s actions had been an abuse of his professional position and had breached the trust that service users place in members of the profession.
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.