Aron Moorhouse
Introduction
Aron Moorhouse is a physiotherapist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number PH112307. On 14 November 2025, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) — at the end of a substantive hearing that had run from 3 November — ordered him struck off the register, having found sexually motivated misconduct towards two service users during physiotherapy appointments and failures to obtain informed consent, and his fitness to practise impaired on both personal and public grounds. The panel also imposed an 18-month interim suspension covering the appeal period.
Background Information
The published record identifies Moorhouse as a physiotherapist holding HCPC registration PH112307, with a career the panel described as hitherto unblemished and supported by testimonials. The determination window does not name his employer or describe his training, and this page does not guess at either. MedicWatch — an independent record service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators and does not editorialise their findings — carries his case with erasure as the most recent outcome, and directs readers to the official HCPC register for current registration details.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Regulatory findings after a criminal acquittal. Moorhouse was acquitted in the Crown Court of criminal charges arising from these allegations. The regulatory panel then reconsidered the same conduct under the civil standard — the balance of probabilities, which is lower than the criminal standard — and its findings are regulator findings, not a criminal conviction.
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, and failures to preserve dignity. The service users were vulnerable: Service User A had multiple sclerosis, and Service User B had autism and mental-health issues. Applying the civil standard after the earlier acquittal, the panel found most particulars proved, while finding particulars 3(a) and 8(a) not proved.
In aggravation, the panel found the misconduct had spanned some two and a half months and involved two service users across multiple appointments; that both had been vulnerable and had suffered actual harm, the misconduct having had an adverse impact on their mental health; and that Moorhouse had abused the trust each service user held in him. It found he had provided no evidence of remorse, remediation or insight. On sanction it directed striking off, with an 18-month interim suspension to run during the appeal period.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record contains no press coverage of the hearing and no public statements from Moorhouse or any other party. The concrete consequences are the striking-off direction of 14 November 2025 and the 18-month interim suspension. The case’s two-track history — acquittal in the Crown Court, then adverse regulatory findings under the civil standard — is itself part of the public record, and the panel’s finding that both service users suffered actual harm to their mental health stands as the regulatory assessment of the impact.
Current Status
Moorhouse was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 14 November 2025, with an 18-month interim suspension in place during the appeal period. His MedicWatch profile records erasure as his most recent published outcome and directs readers to the official HCPC register for his current position, including whether any appeal was pursued.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Striking off ended Moorhouse’s registration and his career as a physiotherapist unless a future restoration application succeeds. The case is a clear illustration of the dual-forum system: a criminal acquittal ends criminal liability, but it does not bind a regulatory panel, which applies the civil standard and asks a different question — not whether the conduct is proven beyond reasonable doubt, but whether a registrant is fit to hold a licence built on clinical trust. The panel’s reasoning records why it found the regulatory case proved where the criminal case had failed: intimate touching without clinical justification or consent, sustained across multiple appointments and two vulnerable patients, with no remorse or insight offered at the hearing that could have pointed toward a lesser sanction. Beyond the determination, the published record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision.