Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes Derrick Denteh Kofi off
The radiographer coerced a vulnerable woman into unprotected sex under the false guise of research and promises of payment or a scholarship.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 31 October 2024 · 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 Derrick Denteh Kofi, radiographer (Health and Care Professions Council RA084662).
Decision date: 31 October 2024 · Hearing started 29 October 2024 and ended 31 October 2024
In plain English
The HCPTS panel struck radiographer Derrick Denteh Kofi off after finding that he coerced a woman into unprotected sex under the false guise of research and promises of money or a scholarship. The panel found sexually motivated misconduct of the utmost severity, with direct harm, no insight or remorse and a significant risk of repetition.
Charges
Mr Kofi coerced a woman into unprotected sex under the false auspices of research, promising money and an academic scholarship in the UK. The conduct was alleged to be sexually motivated.
Findings
The panel accepted the woman's consistent evidence and found that the purported research was implausible and could never have been legitimate. It proved coercion and sexual motivation and described the misconduct as of the utmost severity. With no insight, remorse, remediation or engagement and a significant repetition risk, it ordered striking off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The serious allegation involved sexual misconduct and sexually motivated conduct towards a vulnerable person; coercion; predatory behaviour; direct harm to the victim; abuse of professional position; breach of trust because the victim engaged with him under the auspices of research; lack of insight into the damage caused to the victim or the university's reputation; no remorse or regret; lack of openness and honesty with his employer and family.
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.