A radiographer at York Hospital has been cautioned by her professional body after she bullied and intimidated a colleague who gave evidence against her before a tribunal.

Jane Hazell victimised her colleague for six months by making insulting or offensive comments and ignoring him while they worked together at York Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, the Health Professions Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee found.

The committee said Ms Hazell victimised the colleague in the workplace between about April 2009 and September 2009 and the panel was “satisfied that bullying over this period of time does amount to misconduct”.

But the committee rejected a claim that she breached patient confidentiality when she looked up a criminal patient on Wikipedia in a clinical area and entered into a wider discussion of his crimes while he was being scanned.

The committee said Ms Hazell’s conduct was unprofessional in misusing the Trust computer and “gossiping about the patient’s crimes”, but decided she did not breach patient confidentiality because information gained from Wikipedia was already in the public domain.

The findings said the colleague – named only as Mr A – only brought the behaviour to light when he was asked to complete a form explaining why he had chosen to leave for a new job.

The committee accepted the events in question occurred over two years ago, at a time when Ms Hazell was extremely stressed and taking medication for depression.

It continued: “Ms Hazell accepted that during this time she came over as cold and indifferent and that she was functioning at a very basic level.”

They said that, having seen and heard Ms Hazell give evidence, the committee was concerned that she lacked insight into her behaviour, which was therefore a risk for the future. The panel concluded that one feature that made Ms Hazell’s misconduct more serious was that she bullied Mr A after he gave evidence against her in a tribunal, evidence which the tribunal and panel accepted was truthful.

The findings stated: “Because it was not an isolated lapse and Ms Hazell has not apologised to Mr A, it would not be appropriate to take no action. The panel has decided that a caution order would be appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the profession because Ms Hazell is in employment where she appears to be performing satisfactorily and the panel does not think that it would be proportionate to inhibit Ms Hazell’s ability to practice given that the references that the panel has read raise no concerns about her clinical ability.

“The Panel has decided that a Caution Order for two years would allow Ms Hazell sufficient time to reflect on the Panel’s concerns and that a longer order would be disproportionate and may be detrimental to Ms Hazell’s mental health.

“The Panel has borne in mind that a Caution Order may be taken into account if a further allegation is made against Ms Hazel. Therefore the Panel is satisfied that it will act as a sufficient reminder to her that her conduct was inappropriate and act as an incentive to Ms Hazell to ensure that it is not repeated.”