Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel ordered physiotherapist Aron Moorhouse struck off
The panel found sexually motivated misconduct towards two service users, impairment on personal and public grounds, and imposed an interim suspension pending the substantive order.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 14 November 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 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 Aron Moorhouse, physiotherapist (Health and Care Professions Council PH112307).
Decision date: 14 November 2025 · Hearing started 3 November 2025 and ended 14 November 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel found that Aron Moorhouse committed sexually motivated misconduct towards two service users during several physiotherapy appointments and failed to obtain informed consent. Applying the civil standard after his earlier criminal acquittal, it found most particulars proved and his fitness to practise impaired on personal and public grounds. The panel ordered striking off and imposed an 18-month interim suspension during the appeal period.
Charges
The allegations concerned inappropriate and sexually motivated conduct towards two service users during physiotherapy appointments in 2019, including intimate touching without clinical justification or informed consent, failures to preserve dignity, misconduct and resulting impairment.
Findings
Following Aron Moorhouse's earlier Crown Court acquittal, the regulatory panel applied the civil standard of proof and found most particulars proved, while finding particulars 3(a) and 8(a) not proved. It found sexual misconduct and impairment on personal and public components, directed striking off, and imposed an 18-month interim suspension for the appeal period.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
the Registrant's hitherto unblemished career, supported by his testimonials.
Aggravating factors
The misconduct spanned some 2 ½ months and involved two service users and multiple appointments; Both service users had been vulnerable at the time in that they both had medical issues; in the case of SUA, MS, and in the case of SUB, autism and mental health issues; Both service users had incurred actual harm in that the misconduct had had an adverse impact on their mental health; The Registrant had abused the trust that each service user held in him; The Registrant had provided no evidence of remorse, remediation or insight.
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.