Bijoy Bridewin Thomas
Introduction
Bijoy Bridewin Thomas is a physiotherapist who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), the body that regulates physiotherapists in the United Kingdom. In September 2026, a panel of the HCPC’s Conduct and Competence Committee suspended him from the register for twelve months after concluding that his fitness to practise was impaired by criminal motoring convictions and by the way he handled them afterwards. The case drew attention because the panel expressly rejected a dishonesty allegation while still finding the disclosure failures proved, blaming what it called numerous deliberate, reckless and negligent decisions rather than an honest misunderstanding.
Background Information
By early 2024 Thomas was a HCPC-registered physiotherapist working in England, and the panel later noted he had only been practising in the United Kingdom for a short period when the events in the case took place. On 17 February 2024 he was stopped by police while driving. The police summary described his car as “swerving all over the road and the manner of driving was dangerous”, and he recorded 113 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, more than three times the legal limit in England and Wales. He was also driving without a licence appropriate for that class of vehicle and without insurance.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Suspended after drink-driving convictions and a renewal declaration that hid them.
On 12 March 2024 Thomas was convicted at Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court of three offences arising from the February stop. He admitted driving with 113 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, contrary to section 87(1); and using a vehicle without insurance, contrary to section 143. He had pleaded guilty. The court disqualified him from driving for 26 months, made a community order requiring 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £249 in costs.
The regulatory case, however, turned on the weeks that followed. Thomas did not tell the HCPC when he was charged, and he did not tell it when he was convicted. On 8 April 2024 he completed his registration renewal application and did not tick ‘yes’ in response to the question whether he had “had any change in relation to your good character (this includes any conviction or caution, if any, that you are required to disclose)”. Only on 13 April 2024, five days after submitting the form, did he email the HCPC disclosing the drink-driving charge, apologising for the delay and explaining that he had believed he needed to report only concerns connected with his professional practice. He later sent the regulator a copy of his community order.
At the substantive hearing, held from 2 to 4 September 2026, Thomas admitted the convictions, the incomplete renewal declaration and the failure to notify, and the panel found those particulars proved. It expressly did not find the dishonesty allegation proved: although he had “deliberately” left the form uncorrected, his email five days later was inconsistent with an intention to conceal, and his mistaken belief that motoring convictions need not be reported was genuinely held. The panel nonetheless found his fitness to practise currently impaired on both the personal and public components, citing limited insight, no evidenced remediation and a very high risk of repetition. No actual harm had been caused, it accepted, but the potential for serious harm was enormous.
Public Reaction and Consequences
Because the misconduct lay in paperwork as much as on the road, the reaction on record comes chiefly from the regulatory process itself. The panel said ordinary members of the public would be “horrified” by a professional’s failure to abide by the law and uphold standards, and that trust in the profession and its regulator would suffer if no impairment finding followed. The outcome was published on the HCPTS hearings site and recorded by MedicWatch, which lists him among the suspended HCPC professionals. Among those who knew him, the picture was warmer: testimonials from his employer and a workplace chaplain described him favourably, and he had spent the previous year in a voluntary position. For fellow registrants, the panel’s message was that renewal declarations about character are not formalities: it said no lesser sanction would send an appropriate message to other registrants about the unacceptability of his actions.
Current Status
Thomas remains suspended from the HCPC register for twelve months from the date the order takes effect. The suspension does not bite immediately: it awaits the expiry of the 28-day appeal window or the outcome of any appeal, and to cover that gap the panel imposed a separate interim suspension order of up to 18 months. When the case was heard he told the panel he had abstained from alcohol for more than fourteen months, had not reapplied for his UK driving licence, and was working as a physiotherapist in India, where he also drives. A future review panel was directed to look for a detailed reflective statement, evidence of training on professional standards, and testimonials addressing his ability to work within a regulatory framework.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The convictions themselves cost him a 26-month driving disqualification, a community order, a fine and costs; the regulatory outcome pauses his UK career for at least a year. The panel stepped back from a striking-off order precisely because the conduct was remediable, giving him a further opportunity to demonstrate insight, but it was unpersuaded by much of what he offered: his account that he had been “healed spiritually” was noted as unsupported by tangible medical evidence, and his suggestion that the episode was ‘just a mistake’ was rejected as an explanation for numerous deliberate, reckless and negligent decisions.