Alga Mau
Introduction
Alga Mau is a hearing aid dispenser who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number HAD04097. On 22 July 2025, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) struck him off the register after considering his convictions for making hundreds of indecent and prohibited images of children — 93 Category A, 91 Category B and 52 Category C indecent images, together with 71 prohibited images. The panel found insufficient insight and remorse, no independent evidence of remediation and a continuing risk of repetition, concluding that no sanction short of striking off would protect the public or public confidence.
Background Information
The published record identifies Mau only as a hearing aid dispenser holding HCPC registration HAD04097. It does not name an employer or high-street chain, and it does not describe his training or career; this page does not guess at any of them. The criminal convictions at the heart of the case were for making indecent images of children across all three severity categories, plus prohibited images, with the offending described by the panel as repeated criminal conduct over approximately two years before he was apprehended; the criminal proceedings also produced a ten-year sexual harm prevention order. His MedicWatch profile records his most recent published outcome as striking off, decided on 22 July 2025, while noting his registration status as not yet verified and directing readers to the official HCPC register for current details. MedicWatch aggregates regulator outcomes and states it does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Conviction case. Unlike most regulatory outcomes, this case rested on a statutory ground of conviction: criminal convictions recorded by a court, which the HCPTS panel accepted as proved. The images described below are as characterised in the regulator’s published determination.
The panel accepted the convictions for making 93 Category A, 91 Category B and 52 Category C indecent images of children, together with 71 prohibited images, and found Mau’s fitness to practise impaired on both personal and public grounds. In aggravation, the panel noted the images included moving images and very young children, and that he had repeatedly engaged in the criminal conduct for approximately two years before being apprehended. The criminal case also imposed a ten-year sexual harm prevention order.
The only mitigation the panel recorded was an absence of any previous disciplinary record in his career as a hearing aid dispenser and early admissions before the Crown Court, which avoided the need for a criminal trial. Against that, it found he lacked insight and had failed to express remorse to the panel, that there was no independent evidence of remediation, and that a continuing risk of repetition remained. Given the seriousness, duration and nature of the offending, the panel concluded that no sanction short of striking off would protect the public or maintain confidence in the profession.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of the hearing and no public statements — none from Mau or from any other party. The concrete consequences recorded across the criminal and regulatory proceedings are the convictions themselves, the ten-year sexual harm prevention order, and the striking-off direction of 22 July 2025.
Current Status
Mau was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 22 July 2025. His MedicWatch profile records striking off as his most recent published outcome, notes his registration status as not yet verified, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for his current position.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Mau’s registration to practise as a hearing aid dispenser in the UK unless a future restoration application succeeds. The panel’s route to that outcome matters for how the case is understood: this was a conviction case, where the regulatory panel’s task was not to re-test the criminal findings but to assess what they meant for a professional whose work places him alone with patients, frequently elderly and vulnerable, in close-proximity appointments. The panel’s emphasis on the absence of remorse and the two-year duration of the offending — rather than the convictions alone — is what its reasoning identifies as foreclosing any lesser sanction.
Beyond the determinations, the published record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision, and nothing on this page should be read as going beyond it.