A senior imaging specialist employed at a prominent oncology centre was discovered to have repeatedly concealed his mobile device to record three women colleagues during wardrobe changes, a disciplinary panel has determined.
Matthew Izett served as a radiographer at the Royal Marsden facility in Sutton spanning from 2016 until his termination in September 2024. The Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service removed him from the professional register on Thursday.
The hearing examined three distinct occurrences spanning 2021 to 2024 concerning female workers identified as Colleagues A, B, and C.
The initial complaint involved an event in May 2021.
Colleague A discovered Mr Izett’s smartphone protruding from a rucksack in a room where she intended to change out of her workwear.
She reported that the camera was operational and directed into the space.
The panel accepted her testimony, determining the device had been intentionally placed and dismissing any notion of it being unintentional.
The panel concluded that Mr Izett had attempted to capture footage of her dressing without her awareness.
The second matter related to June 2021 when Colleague B located the respondent’s phone concealed behind a monitor with its lens pointed into the area after declaring she would be changing attire.
She noticed a blinking red indicator and characterised the respondent as anxious and guarded when confronted.
The panel established there was only one explanation for the phone’s placement and determined he had attempted to record her changing.
The third complaint originated from June 2024 when Colleague C discovered the respondent’s phone in a storage compartment directed at the space shortly after requesting he leave so she could change.
The gadget indicated it had been capturing footage for 51 seconds. Mr Izett subsequently confessed to erasing the clip.
The tribunal determined the video capture had been deliberately initiated and that he had attempted to record her without her awareness.
Mr Izett contested the claims, maintaining any recordings were unintentional.
He indicated he had not intended to film anything specifically not a colleague undressing and attributed the 2024 footage to accidental triggering of a camera function on his device.
However, Izett elected not to appear at the proceedings and informed the HCPTS that he no longer wished to participate in the hearing process.
All three complaints were upheld.
The panel additionally determined the behaviour was sexually driven, finding that common sense and the evidence established only permitted one reasonable interpretation and that the respondent was pursuing sexual gratification.
The tribunal considered the professional misconduct to be exceptionally grave, characterising the conduct as calculated and a violation of professional standards.
It determined the respondent’s suitability to practise remained compromised, noting the absence of understanding, regret, or corrective action and a considerable likelihood of recurrence.
Concluding that suspension would insufficiently safeguard the public, the panel issued a striking-off order.
They stated the respondent’s conduct was incompatible with continued professional registration and that no lesser penalty was suitable.