Chris Smith

Introduction

Chris Smith is an operating department practitioner who was registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) under registration number ODP16189. On 15 December 2025, at the end of a substantive hearing that had begun on 8 December, a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS), sitting as the Conduct and Competence Committee, struck him off the register. The panel found proved a course of sexually motivated conduct towards a colleague, identified in the proceedings as Person A, while he worked as a band six senior theatre practitioner at Sandwell Hospital. It rejected his written account that the messages were consensual banter and directed that his name be removed from the register. Smith did not attend the hearing; he took part only through written statements.

Background Information

The published record identifies Smith as an operating department practitioner holding HCPC registration ODP16189. He began working alongside Person A in April 2019 through an agency, and between July 2019 and October 2020 he was employed as a band six senior theatre practitioner at Sandwell Hospital, part of the Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust. The record does not describe his training or earlier career, and this page does not guess at them. MedicWatch, an independent service that aggregates publicly published decisions of UK healthcare regulators without editorialising their findings, carries his case with erasure (struck off the register) 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.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Civil-standard findings, not criminal convictions. Nothing in the published record points to criminal proceedings. Everything proved below was proved by a regulatory panel to the civil standard — the balance of probabilities — and the findings belong to the panel, not to a court.

The conduct at issue began after Smith and Person A exchanged telephone numbers to cover shifts. Between July and December 2019, she testified, she was overwhelmed by a barrage of unsolicited messages that caused her significant distress. They included explicit sexual references to what Smith hoped to do with her and endearments such as “baby cakes”. He gave her a “we value you” card from the NHS Trust bearing sexual comments and an invitation to “a date”, placed a chocolate bar in her bag wrapped with notes reading “I want you” and “baby cake”, and gave her lingerie as a Christmas gift. She also described him following her at work, resting his head on her shoulder, and kissing her on the cheek without her consent.

The tribunal examined the text messages, finding many to be “wholly inappropriate and sexual in nature”, including explicit language and descriptions of sexual acts. In its findings on sexual motivation, the panel found the texts overtly sexual, not banter, and sent in pursuit of a sexual relationship with Person A. On the balance of probabilities it found that “a date” on the Trust card meant a romantic date, that “I want you” referred to wanting her in a sexual way, and that “baby cakes” was a term of affection that was not professional language to use towards a professional colleague. It found the kiss was not a greeting, since the two had been working together rather than just met, and treated the conduct as a course of conduct that was sexually motivated throughout.

Smith did not attend but submitted written statements denying inappropriate conduct and claiming there was a “culture of banter” in the workplace, that any messages were consensual and private, and that Person A had shown reciprocal interest. The panel found no evidence the messages were welcome or reciprocated. Person A denied any flirtatious behaviour, said the only social interaction between them was a group Christmas event, and clarified that a colleague, not she, had once gifted Smith a personalised condom — contradicting his assertion.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The case received local press coverage: Birmingham Daily reported the striking-off in January 2026 under the headline “Hospital Worker Struck Off for Harassing Colleague with Sexual Messages”, describing the messages, the gifts and the rejection of the banter defence. Beyond that report, the published record shows no public statements from Smith or any other party. The concrete consequences came from the tribunal process itself. The panel noted his previously clean record and a limited apology, but found them insufficient against misconduct it characterised as persistent, one-way harassment that made Person A feel intimidated and threatened at work. His non-attendance, and the absence of remorse or any attempted remediation, were recorded against him. On that basis the panel directed that his name be removed from the register.

Current Status

Smith was struck off the HCPC register by the panel’s decision of 15 December 2025, which directed his removal from the register. The panel’s findings followed a hearing that ran from 8 to 15 December 2025, and the tribunal examined the text messages themselves, finding many to be “wholly inappropriate and sexual in nature”. The published record does not note any interim order. His MedicWatch profile records erasure (struck off the register) as his most recent published outcome, notes his registration status as not yet verified, and, like the determination page, directs readers to the official HCPC register for his current registration status, since the decision itself explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Striking off ended Smith’s registration as an operating department practitioner in the UK. The case shows how conduct directed at a colleague rather than at patients still ends a registration: the panel’s concern was the sexually motivated pursuit of a co-worker under cover of workplace banter, and the banter defence failed against messages it found overtly sexual and one-way. It also shows the cost of non-engagement. Smith’s written denials were tested against Person A’s testimony and the messages themselves, and his absence from the hearing, his limited apology and his failure to show remorse or attempt remediation counted against him at the sanction stage. The sanction was framed as necessary to uphold workplace safety and professional standards within the NHS. The record contains no information about his circumstances since the decision.

Sources

• *Birmingham Daily (Rebecca Duffy), “Hospital Worker Struck Off for Harassing Colleague with Sexual Messages” (12 January 2026) — source
• *MedicWatch, “Chris Smith — Struck off the register · 15 December 2025” (HCPC determination, substantive hearing, Conduct and Competence Committee) — source
• *MedicWatch, “Chris Smith — Operating department practitioner · Health and Care Professions Council ODP16189” — source