HCPC determination — substantive hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning Jeanette S Clewes, radiographer (HCPC RA15515).
Decision date: 17 December 2025 · Hearing started 15 December 2025 and ended 17 December 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel decided that Jeanette S Clewes should be subject to the published outcome from a final hearing. The panel directed removal from the HCPC Register. The public page records the profession, registration number, allegation, finding, order, notes and hearing history for source verification.
Charges
The HCPTS allegation section states: arose, a Registrant has corrected matters or “learned their lesson”. Although the Panel’s task is not to punish past wrongdoings, it does need to take account of past acts or omissions in determining whether a Registrant’s present fitness to practise is impaired. In addition, when assessing the likelihood of a Registrant causing similar harm in the future, the Panel should take account of both the degree of harm, if any, caused by a Registrant and that Registrant’s culpability for that harm. Finally, the Panel is to consider whether a Registrant has demonstrated insight into their attitude and failings. 60. The Panel noted Ms Bass’ submissions contained in the Case Summary: “I. Impairment 32. Whether the proven facts amount to impairment of fitness to practise is also a matter of judgement for the Panel and the HCPC does not propose to present any separate evidence on this point. 33. The HCPC will invite the Panel to have regard to the Practice Note entitled ‘Fitness to Practise Impairment’ and will argue that the registrant’s behaviour falls far below that expected of a registered healthcare professional. If the facts are proven the HCPC will argue that there is a risk of repetition meaning the registrant is impaired on the personal component, and that the allegations are so serious that finding that the Registrant’s behaviour does not amount to impairment would undermine confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, meaning she is also impaired on the public component.” 61. Ms Bass added oral submissions as follows: she submitted that, applying the test in the case of CHRE v NMC (ex parte Grant) the Registrant had brought the profession into disrepute and had breached fundamental tenets of the profession. She reminded the Panel that it had to look forward...
Findings
The HCPTS page records a final hearing for Jeanette S Clewes by the Conduct and Competence Committee. The panel directed removal from the HCPC Register. The allegation section states: arose, a Registrant has corrected matters or “learned their lesson”. Although the Panel’s task is not to punish past wrongdoings, it does need to take account of past acts or omissions in determining whether a.... The order section states: did. She went on to say that the basis of the application to proceed in the Registrant’s absence was the same as for the identical application that she had made at the commencement of the hearing, with the additional factor that the Panel had now determined....
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published HCPC 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.