Stephen Knightley

Preliminary Matters

Amendment

1. At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC applied to amend the Allegation. The basis of the Allegation was to better reflect the evidence obtained since the Investigating Committee Panel Decision to refer the matter to a final hearing. It is submitted that this would be fairer to the Registrant.

2. The HCPC Skeleton Argument (updated version) says:

6.The proposed amendments to Particular one are intended to better reflect the evidence that the alleged incidents happened between 2003 and 2014, there are no examples in the schedule that extend beyond 2014 so it is more accurate to state ‘between 2003 and 2014’.

7. The proposal to add the words on ‘one or more of’ the occasions listed is intended to clarify that the Panel are being asked to consider each incident individually as a matter of fact.

8. The proposal to remove example g from the schedule better reflects the evidence obtained. Colleague A describes this incident at paragraph 18 of their statement… but explains the extent of their knowledge and belief in this regard is based on what Colleague G told them. The notes of the Trusts meeting with Colleague G are in the bundle… where Colleague G describes the meeting with the Registrant and has not suggested that these words were used. Colleague G is not a witness for the HCPC. It would therefore be unfair and inappropriate for the HCPC to proceed with this part of the schedule as there is no direct evidence to support it.

9. The Registrant will be put on notice of this proposed amendment on the day this skeleton is drafted [25 April 2024] so it is not known if there are any objections. It is intended that the proposed amendments narrow the issues rather than cause additional work for the Registrant but if there are objections then the HCPC will provide further oral submissions at the hearing.

10. For these reasons, the HCPC will invite the Panel to make the proposed amendments on the basis that they better reflect the evidence, it would be fair to the Registrant and does not cause him any prejudice.

3. The Registrant did not object to the application to amend the Allegation, whilst noting that there were evidential issues pertaining to Schedule A (g) which he would refer to in the course of evidence.

4. The Panel allowed the amendments, pursuant to its broad case management discretion. There was no prejudice to the Registrant. The amended Allegation, as set out above, better reflects the evidence. Particular 1, Schedule A (g) was based exclusively on hearsay evidence and the HCPC took the view that it would not be fair to the Registrant to proceed with this Particular in light of the evidential difficulties. The removal of this Particular did not substantially alter the nature, or seriousness of the Allegation faced by the Registrant.

Bundle

5. The Panel was provided with an HCPC bundle which ran to 206 pages and a Registrant bundle of 95 pages. The Panel was also provided with an updated skeleton argument on behalf of the HCPC which was eight pages in length.

6. The Panel subsequently received closing submissions from Ms Bass on behalf of the HCPC (at the facts stage) which ran to nine pages, and from the Registrant which ran to eight pages.

Special Measures

7. Special Measures were agreed at a preliminary meeting on 28 June 2023, directing that the Registrant was to switch off his camera while Colleague A gave her evidence.

8. The Special Measures agreed at a preliminary meeting on 30 June 2023, also directed that Counsel would be arranged to cross examine Colleague A on behalf of the Registrant.

9. With regards to the Directions made when the hearing was adjourned on 3 July 2023, the Registrant has notified the HCPC that his appeal to UNISON was unsuccessful and he has not secured legal representation.

Proceeding in Private

10. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to take place partially in private, having regard to any matters pertaining to the health or personal life of the Registrant or Colleague A.

11. Having taken the Legal Assessor’s advice and having considered the HCPTS Practice Note: Conducting Hearings in Private, the Panel agreed that the hearing should be held partially in private, in order to protect the private life of the Registrant and any witnesses, where issues pertaining to their health and/or private lives were raised.

 

Background

12. The Registrant is employed by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“the Trust”) as a Band 7 Paramedic (Urgent Care), having joined the Trust in 1994 as a Technician and having subsequently qualified as a Paramedic in 2001. The Registrant is also a rapid response vehicle (“RRV”) driver.

13. On 11 December 2020, the HCPC received a referral in relation to allegations of bullying and harassment by the Registrant towards Colleague A between 2003 and 2014.

14. Colleague A is also employed by the Trust and currently holds the role of Advanced Emergency Medical Technician, which is a role that she has held since 2008, having joined and held other roles within the Trust since 2003. She is now a Lead Clinician at Maltby Ambulance Station, having moved from Longley Ambulance Station, where the alleged incidents with the Registrant occurred, in 2014.

15. Colleague A’s allegation was that she first met the Registrant in 2003 on a night out with colleagues. When she endeavoured to thank him for caring for her grandfather, the Registrant responded with the phrase “who the fuck are you” or words to that effect.

16. It is the HCPC’s case that this incident marked the start of a period of bullying and harassment of Colleague A by the Registrant, and the specific incidents which form the basis of the Allegation against the Registrant are detailed in Schedule A.

17. By January 2014, it is alleged that Registrant’s behaviour towards Colleague A continued to escalate and he glared at her and physically or verbally threatened her on a number of occasions. Colleague A reported that “Mr Knightly’s behaviour towards me had worsened. I explained that whenever I crossed paths with Mr Knightly he would glare and smirk at me and I felt threatened by him. I was intimidated and too scared to come into work…” (paragraph 23 of her witness statement).

18. As a result of the alleged intensification in the Registrant’s behaviour towards her, Colleague A reported her concerns to Colleague G. Colleague A, in her witness statement dated 28 January 2014, says that Colleague G had previously had an “informal” conversation with the Registrant.

19. Thereafter Colleague A was advised to make a formal complaint which prompted an internal Trust investigation into the Registrant’s alleged conduct.

20. During the Trust’s investigation, fact-finding interviews were carried out with the Registrant and Colleague A and with other colleagues from their ambulance station. However, a number of the witnesses who were invited to attend for interview either did not wish to attend or could not do so because of work commitments. Some written statements requested were also not obtained and other staff requested that their names remained anonymous or that their statements were not relied on as part of the investigation.

21. Colleague A subsequently brought a civil case against the Trust and the Registrant for bullying and harassment. Both Colleague A and the Registrant have referred to documentation, and which is in the bundle, which was prepared for the purpose of the civil litigation.

22. The Panel has not been provided with the outcome of the Trust investigation or the subsequent civil proceedings and has determined the facts of the case solely on the basis of the evidence it has heard during the course of the final hearing.

23. The Registrant has consistently denied the allegations of bullying and harassment, in the internal Trust investigation, the civil proceedings, and in these proceedings.

Witnesses

24. The HCPC called Colleague A to give live evidence and also relied, in support of its case against the Registrant, on the written statement of Witness B and the exhibits to her statement. Witness B is an Area Operations Manager for the Trust.

25. The HCPC did not call Witness B to give live evidence on the basis that the witness cannot provide any further information beyond the documentation that has been produced as the exhibits to her witness statement. The documentation produced by Witness B included the Registrant’s contract of employment, job description and the documents generated in the Trust’s internal investigation.

26. The Registrant confirmed that he had no objection to this approach.

27. The Panel also heard evidence from the Registrant and the following witnesses on his behalf, Mr MH and Ms SB.

Legal Advice

28. The Panel has heard and accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. In approaching the task of deciding the facts, the Panel has kept at the forefront of its deliberations the importance of requiring the HCPC to prove matters against the Registrant. The standard of proof to which the HCPC is required to prove matters is the civil standard – on the balance of probabilities.

29. The Panel was very conscious that when a witness has not given oral evidence, this amounts to hearsay evidence. When considering hearsay evidence, the Panel has paid due regard to the weight which it can attach to it, bearing in mind that it has not been possible for that evidence to be challenged or probed. It has sought where possible to corroborate such evidence with direct evidence pertaining to the allegations.

Decision on Facts

Particular 1. Schedule A (a): Not Proved

30. The Allegation is that in or about Christmas 2003, at a work-related social gathering, the Registrant said to Colleague A “Who the fuck are you?” or words to that effect in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

31. The evidence from Colleague A in her HCPC witness statement dated 26 August 2022 (witness statement) is:

"I do not remember the exact date or location but I first met Mr Knightly on a night out with work colleagues in 2003. I asked a few of my colleagues if Mr Knightly was there and they pointed him out. I wanted to thank Mr Knightly as my mother, who used to work for the ambulance service, had previously told me that Mr Knightly had once taken really good care of my Grandad when he was poorly and taken him to hospital. When I approached Mr Knightly to thank him, he said “who the fuck are you”. I did not respond and just walked away. I do not remember if there was anyone else present who witnessed the interaction".

32. This incident is not referred to in Colleague A’s statement dated 28 January 2014. However, she did mention it when interviewed, as part of the Trust’s internal investigation on 7 March 2014. She stated: “When I saw him on a night out I went to thank him for taking my Grandfather to hospital. He looked at me and told me: Stephen confronted me and said “who the fuck are you” and told me to “fuck off” to my face”.

33. In oral evidence, Colleague A described the Registrant’s demeanour as being “confrontational”. However, she was unable to provide any additional clarification or context, such as the name of venue, the date, or the names of any colleagues who may have witnessed the incident or its aftermath.

34. The Registrant denied the Allegation. The Trust’s internal investigation report records the Registrant’s response to this Allegation (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014) as:

“I can guarantee that did not say that to [Colleague A]”. [sic]

35. The Registrant’s evidence was that he recalled meeting Colleague A at a social event, which took place at a public house called the Devonshire Cat. He had been introduced to Colleague A by her mother, who also worked for the Trust. It was a short encounter and there were no witnesses. He was unable to recall what year this took place but he was clear that he did not use the offensive language attributed to him. It was on this occasion he may have made a comment about Colleague A and her mother “looking like sisters”.

36. Ms Bass’s submission on behalf of the HCPC, was that Colleague A’s recollection was more likely to be accurate, as the Registrant “would consider her a stranger at this point”. She added that the Registrant’s account in relation to seeing Colleague A, together with her mother, was likely to refer to a separate and distinct occasion.

37. The Registrant submitted that:

(a) Colleague A had given inconsistent accounts – this incident did not form part of her initial complaint on 28 January 2014.

(b) It is unlikely that there were two distinct events, as suggested by Ms Bass, as if he had reacted this way on the first occasion, she is unlikely to have approached him again, in light of his alleged previous behaviour.

(c) He would not have spoken to a stranger in the manner alleged, especially someone who had approached him in a bar to thank him for the manner in which he had looked after her grandfather.

(d) His recollection is more detailed than that of Colleague A, both in relation to this incident, and more generally, taking the allegations as a whole.

38. The Panel was unable to find this Particular proved on the balance of probability for the following reasons:

(a) The incident is said to have taken place over 20 years ago.

(b) There is no corroboration of Colleague A’s account, which was vague and largely unparticularised. She could not provide any context to the incident, or any additional detail, such as the name of the Public House, the date of the incident, or even the time of year it occurred, despite the Allegation stating it took place at Christmas.

(c) Colleague A’s account had been inconsistent. This incident did not appear in her initial complaint to the Trust on 28 January 2014.

(d) The Panel found the Registrant’s evidence on this issue more compelling and concluded that it was very unlikely that the Registrant, when first encountering a colleague, who at that time was a stranger, at a social event, would, out of the blue, behave in such an offensive manner, using profane language, with no apparent provocation.

(e) The Panel noted the Registrant’s concession that he could, on occasions be direct, and that the workplace did at times have a culture of banter. However, this falls a long way short of the sort of behaviour alleged.

(f) Had the Panel concluded that the Registrant had used such language, they would have implicitly found it to be aggressive and/or derogatory. However, on balance, it concluded that the incident did not occur as alleged.

Particular 1. Schedule A (b): Not Proved

39. The Allegation is that in 2004, at a social gathering, the Registrant said to Colleague A “Fuck off” or words to that effect, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

40. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement was:

"During a work social gathering at Millionaires Bar in Sheffield in 2004, I noticed that Mr Knightly was constantly glaring at me. I approached him to ask what I had done wrong. Mr Knightly put his nose against my nose and told me to “fuck off”. I found Mr Knightly’s demeanour very intimidating. I cannot remember if there was anyone else present who witnessed the interaction. After this incident, I made a point to stay away from Mr Knightly and did not speak to him.”

41. Colleague A’s account is referred to in her witness statement dated 28 January 2014, where she says: “I once approached Stephen Knightly and asked him “what have I done to you? he came up to me within an inch of my face and told me to “fuck off” this in a public place on a staff night out. Approx 2004”.

42. In cross-examination, it was suggested that Colleague A was mistaken, and that the Registrant had not been present at this social event, as he was outside of the UK, but Colleague A remained adamant. It was also suggested that Colleague A had been inconsistent as between her account in these proceedings, and her Particulars of Claim in the civil proceedings, as to whether there were witnesses to the incident.

43. The Registrant had no recollection of ever attending a social event at the ‘Millionaires Bar’ and denied this incident took place at all.

44. The Registrant noted that in the Particulars of Claim, in the civil proceedings, it was alleged that the incident was witnessed by a colleague (Person 55) . The Registrant’s evidence was that this witness did not join the Trust until the autumn of 2004. As he was out of the country in Australia from August 2004 onwards, as evidenced by his passport, this incident could not have taken place. In cross-examination, he conceded that he was in the UK for the first eight months of the year.

45. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC submitted that even if Colleague A was incorrect about the date of the incident, her recollection is more likely to be accurate, given that she found the incident to be intimidating.

46. The Registrant submitted that:

(a) Colleague A had given inconsistent accounts. In these proceedings she alleged that she could not recall if there were any witnesses to the alleged incident. In her civil proceedings, in her Particulars of Claim, she makes reference to a number of witnesses (Persons 55, 56 and 57).

(b) Colleague A’s account is vague, with no specific date or corroborating evidence.

47. The Panel was unable to find this Particular proved on the balance of probability for the following reasons:

(a) The incident is said to have taken place approximately 20 years ago.

(b) Colleague A was unable to provide a date or approximate time of year for when the incident was said to have occurred. It was noted that her initial complaint to the Trust on 28 January 2014 does not refer to the location of the alleged incident.

(c) The uncertainty regarding the date of the alleged incident undermines the HCPC case, as the Registrant was out of the country from August 2004 onwards. Whilst it is plausible that the incident occurred in the period before his departure for Australia, there was no evidence to contradict the Registrant’s evidence that Person 55 did not join the Trust until the autumn of 2014.

(d) The Panel concluded that had the incident occurred in the manner alleged by Colleague A that there would have been witnesses to the incident itself or its aftermath in terms of the effect on Colleague A. It would, as a matter of common sense, stick in the memory of Trust employees, if a more senior male Paramedic had placed his face in such close proximity to a more junior female colleague, and told her to “fuck off” at a social event.

(e) There is no explanation as to why the Registrant would behave in such a manner towards Colleague A, out of the blue, with no context as to the earlier conversation. The Panel noted that Colleague A allegedly asked the Registrant, “What have I done to you?”, implying a course of prior behaviour towards her. However, in relation to the HCPC’s case, there had only been one prior incident, in 2003.

(f) Had the Panel concluded that the Registrant had used such language, it would have implicitly found it to be aggressive and/or derogatory. However, on balance, the Panel concluded that the incident did not occur as alleged.

Particular 1. Schedule A (c): Not Proved

48. The Allegation is that in 2009, at Longley Ambulance Station, the Registrant said to Colleague A: “You look so old just like your mother. You’re fucking useless. Shut up. You’re a scrubber and you’re from the Manor” or words to that effect, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

49. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement was:

"In 2009, on a date I cannot recall, I went to sit down in the Mess Room at Longley. The Mess Room is a room where staff would take their meal breaks, catch up on meals and chill out during downtime. The Team Leader’s Office was also in the Mess Room. I recall Mr Knightly looking at me and said “you look so old, just like your mother and you’re fucking useless”. Mr Knightly later said “you’re a scrubber and all your family are from the Manor.” The Manor in Sheffield in now known to be a desirable location, so he had said this to be nasty. I shook my head but did not respond, I quickly learned that if I responded, it would make matters worse.”

50. This incident is referred to in Colleague A’s witness statement dated 28 January 2014, although there is no reference to a particular date or even year. The impression given is that Colleague A is providing a summary of alleged bullying and harassment over a more prolonged period of time: “I have had constant verbal abuse as he has said I am useless, called me old and my mother looked the same age, a scrubber, told me to shut up and that my family and I come from the Manor.”

51. The incident is also referred to in document described as “Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects” prepared for the purpose of the civil litigation, where there is a reference to 2009: “Verbal abuse. You look so old just like your mother. You’re fucking useless Shut up, you’re a scrubber and you’re from the Manor. All you family are from the Manor”.

52. In oral evidence, Colleague A described this incident as coming “out of the blue”. She had not said anything beforehand and was quietly having her meal break. The Registrant was approximately a desk length away when the incident occurred.

53. The Registrant denied the Allegation. The Trust’s internal investigation report records the Registrant’s response to the Allegation (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014):

“It first started on a night out when [Person 39] introduced her and I thought that they were sisters. I have never called her a scrubber. I don’t know where she lives and would not have said she had come from the Manor”.

54. The Registrant added:

“[Colleague A] can be aggressive and challenging and gives as good as she gets. I have been called a baldly bastard by [Colleague A]. It is true I can be a bastard”.

55. The Registrant was asked in the Trust internal investigation whether he had targeted Colleague A (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014). He replied:

“No, I have not targeted [Colleague A]. She is not even on my radar when I am at work and gives as good as she gets”.

56. In cross-examination it was suggested to Colleague A that her evidence of constant bullying from the Registrant was inconsistent with the five year gap between this incident in 2009 and the previous incident in 2004. Colleague A’s response was that she had been on the Advanced Technician course and only returned to Longley ambulance station in 2008.

57. It was also suggested that Colleague A’s account was inconsistent – on the one hand suggesting that the Registrant had told her to “shut up” and, on the other, her evidence was that she avoided engaging in any conversation with him.

58. The Registrant’s evidence was that the incident simply did not happen and that Colleague A might have been confusing events. He had previously made a comment about Colleague A and her mother appearing to be sisters, when they had first been introduced, on a social event. This was the occasion referred to above (Schedule A (a)).

59. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC submitted that Colleague A’s account is more likely to be accurate. This was based on the Registrant’s admission that he can be assertive or direct and the concession by both the Registrant and Mr MH that this was a workplace where banter took place, including the use of colourful language. In addition, it was submitted that the comments had to be seen in the context of the fact that the Registrant had doubts regarding Colleague A’s clinical abilities.

60. The Registrant submitted:

(a) It is “ludicrous” to suggest that he could have made these allegations in the Longley ambulance station Mess Room, without this being witnessed by other colleagues who would have rushed to the defence of anyone being subject to such a level of abuse.

(b) The allegations are vague, lacking any substance, detail or context. The previous comment about Colleague A and her mother looking like sisters in very different to suggesting that “you look so old, just like your mother” out of the blue and without any preamble.

(c) The HCPC’s submission regarding the Registrant having concerns about Colleague A’s clinical ability is irrelevant to this Allegation. His concerns arose following the incident on 17 December 2013. This Allegation dates from 2009.

(d) There is an obvious distinction to be drawn between being, on the one hand, “assertive”, “direct”, engaging in “banter” – and on the other, to being “downright insulting”.

61. The Panel was unable to find this Allegation proved on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons:

(a) This is an Allegation which dates back approximately 15 years.

(b) There is no evidence as to any specific date or month during 2009 when the comments are said to have been made. It is unclear, given the manner in which the original Allegation was made in January 2014, where in fact the comments are alleged to have been made on a specific date as a single incident or whether they have conflated over time.

(c) There is no corroboration of Colleague A’s account. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s submission that if such comments had been made, on a single occasion, in the Mess Room, it is likely that there would have been witnesses. Colleague A was unable to provide any context for which the comments were made.

(d) Although Colleague A, in her statement dated 28 January 2014, refers to “constant verbal abuse”, it is noted that the HCPC case at its height, is that there were two isolated events in 2003 and 2004. Thereafter, there is a five year gap to the next specific incident reported by Colleague A.

(e) Colleague A gave the impression during her evidence that she was confident and could be confrontational at times. It seemed unlikely that she would simply seek to avoid conversation with the Registrant. Colleague A failed to make any concessions in her evidence, even when there were obvious inconsistencies, such as the five year gap between 2004 and 2009 between allegations and her assertion of “constant” abuse.

(f) The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s explanation that Colleague A had misremembered the comment in respect of her mother and her appearing as sisters was plausible. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence that he did not know where Colleague A, or her family lived.

(g) Had the Panel concluded that the Registrant had used such language, on a single occasion, it would have implicitly found it to be aggressive and/or derogatory. However, it concluded that, on balance, that the incident did not occur as alleged.

Particular 1. Schedule A (d): Not Proved

62. The Allegation is that in June 2012, at Longley Ambulance Station, the Registrant discharged a fire extinguisher into Colleague A’s face in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

63. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement is:

"In June 2012, I was in the garage at Longley, smoking and drinking a coffee with my colleague, [MH]. Mr Knightly walked into the garage with a foam fire extinguisher and sprayed me in the face with it. The foam went on my face and in my coffee. I went to the Mess Room, put my coffee cup in the sink and wiped the foam off my face. Mr [MH] and Mr Knightly remained in the garage. I heard Mr [MH] say to Mr Knightly “what the fuck are you doing?”. Mr Knightly clearly thought it was funny, as he just laughed. I did not report this incident at the time because I felt intimidated by Mr Knightly.”

64. This incident is referred to in Colleague A’s witness statement dated 28 January 2014, but she dates this incident as “Approx 2011”. The incident is also referenced in the “Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects”, for the purpose of the civil litigation.

65. In oral evidence, Colleague A was unable to confirm the date of this incident, due to the lapse of time, and whether it occurred in 2011 or 2012. She had known Mr MH who witnessed the incident, for eight to nine years at the time. She confirmed that the fire extinguisher emitted foam and not water. There was only one incident with the Registrant involving a fire extinguisher.

66. In cross-examination, Colleague A confirmed that the Registrant had sprayed her with fire extinguisher foam, which covered her face and her coffee cup, whilst on a cigarette break. It was suggested that Colleague A was exaggerating, but she denied this.

67. The Registrant denied the Allegation. The Trust investigation report records the Registrant’s response (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014) as, “I have only set a fire extinguisher off a few times. The first on a car [on fire] and the second was at an Ambulance Station where I fell onto one”.

68. The Registrant’s account is that he had done no more than to wave the nozzle of a fire extinguisher, as a joke, in reaction to finding Colleague A and Mr MH smoking. His evidence was that Colleague A and Mr MH were smoking inside the garage. He was concerned as to the proximity of oxygen cylinders on the ambulance and had made a flippant remark along the lines of: “Bugger off, don’t smoke here”. He had returned with a fire extinguisher and displayed it in a way he regarded as “funny”.

69. The Registrant had included a link to a video of a fire extinguisher discharging to show the extent of the pressure/foam involved. Had he discharged it, this would have taken hours to clean up and would no doubt have led to a complaint.

70. The Panel heard oral evidence from Mr MH. He produced a witness statement dated 4 May 2017 (but signed on 20 June 2017), which was created for the purposes of the civil litigation. His oral account was consistent with his written statement: he and Colleague A were smoking in the garage, possibly with another colleague. The Registrant came into the garage and as he passed them, he made a derogatory comment about smoking. He adds: “Steve appeared to be being sarcastic but in a relatively light hearted way or so it seemed to me”.

71. His account of what happened next is:

"He walked past us and went into the mess room but came out again after a short period of time and he was carrying a hand-held fire extinguisher, I think it was one of the water types which has a long black nozzle. I recall that he flicked the nozzle at the two of us and some drops of water came from the nozzle and went in our general direction. I do not know if any of the water drops fell on either myself or [Colleague A] as I cannot now recall precisely where they went. However, it seemed to me that he was not trying to deliberately get either of us wet but was simply making a gesture of flicking the nozzle in our direction. Again, it did not seem to be to be an action of anything other than being light hearted and flippant but I was immediately aware that [Colleague A] was unhappy and quite angry".

As a result of seeing this I did say something to Sterve along the lines of “What are you doing?” Had [Colleague A] responded in a different way, I doubt I would have said anything.

I can say that the account of the incident which is set out in paragraph 12 of the Particulars of Claim is incorrect. As I recall it was definitely drops of water and not foam that came from the extinguisher and certainly none went into [Colleague A’s] face or mouth, I would also refute the suggestion that Steve fired the foam extinguisher into A’s face. The movement was a general one in both our direction rather than being directed at [Colleague A]. I am sure of that…”

72. In cross-examination it was suggested that Mr MH could have been describing a separate event to the one alleged by Colleague A. However, he was clear that he had never witnessed the Registrant discharge a fire extinguisher towards Colleague A.

73. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC submitted that Colleague A’s account was more reliable. She pointed to the fact that Mr MH confirmed that he did ask the Registrant what he was doing and did not suggest that Colleague A was overreacting but he could not remember why he reacted that way.

74. The Registrant submitted:

(a) Colleague A had embellished a relatively trivial incident, to make it appear far more serious that it was.

(b) The evidence from MH directly contradicts Colleague A’s account. He gave clear evidence that he had not ever seen the Registrant discharge a fire extinguisher at Colleague A.

(c) Had he discharged a foam fire extinguisher in such close proximity to Colleague A, she would have been covered in foam, and soaked to the skin, making her uniform (and that of Mr MH) unsuitable to work in. A substantial clear up operation would have been required and this “would hardly have gone unnoticed on a busy ambulance station”.

(d) The HCPC case is inconsistent. On the one hand, Mr MH is alleged to have supported the Registrant as he admired his professional skills. On the other hand, it was alleged he had been intimidated by the Registrant, such he did not provide a witness statement to support Colleague A in the Trust investigation.

75. The Panel was unable to find this Particular proved on the balance of probabilities for the following reason:

(a) In short, the Panel preferred the Registrant’s evidence on this issue. Colleague A’s account was simply not plausible. The Panel accepted the Registrant disapproved of smoking, particularly in the garage, and that his comments and actions in pretending to discharge the water fire extinguisher are explicable in this context.

(b) The Panel accepted the submission that if a foam fire extinguisher had been discharged in proximity to Colleague A, this would have caused significant disruption within the ambulance station, requiring the foam to be cleared up and would have rendered Colleague A’s uniform unwearable. There may also have health and safety consequences.

(c) The Registrant’s account was corroborated by Mr MH. The Panel found Mr MH to be a credible and honest witness, who had done his best to assist the Panel, without any apparent ulterior motive.

(d) Colleague A’s account in these circumstances was incredible and undermined her overall credibility. The Panel, when reaching conclusions on the other disputed allegations, was influenced by the fact that Colleague A’s account on this issue was so obviously fanciful, and directly contradicted by an independent witness.

(e) Had the Panel concluded that the Registrant had discharged the fire extinguisher in the manner alleged by Colleague A, it would have implicitly found this act to be aggressive and/or derogatory. However, the Registrant’s actions, on the facts as found proved by the Panel were light hearted and could not objectively be regarded as causing offence.

Particular 1. Schedule A (e): Not Proved

76. The Allegation is that during 2012, when referring to a call out which Colleague A had not attended due to being on a compulsory break, the Registrant said “You should be ashamed of yourself” or words to that effect, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

77. The Registrant admitted using the words described in 1. Schedule A (e), but denied the stem of the Allegation, that he had behaved in an aggressive or derogatory manner.

78. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement was:

"In June 2012, on a date I cannot recall, I was on a compulsory meal break at Longley. During compulsory meal breaks, staff were not permitted to respond to any emergency calls. There were some Patient Transport Service ("PTS") staff and some other crew who were also on their meal break. Mr Knightley was on shift but he was not on a break.

During my compulsory meal break, a "999" call came in, which Mr Knightley attended. While attending the "999" call, Mr Knightley radioed Control to ask if there were any crews available. It had been an extremely busy day and quite a few crews had been late coming back to Longley for their compulsory breaks. Through the radio, I could hear Control tell Mr Knightley that there were no crews available to attend as they were all on a meal break. Mr Knightley then called through to the Mess Room at Longley and I do not remember who specifically, but one of my PTS colleagues answered and advised that we were all on break and could not attend. A colleague who was sat beside me, [Person 2] said that they would attend the call, as they only had a minute left on their meal break. [Person 2] radioed Control to tell them that she would respond and back Mr Knightly on the call.

When Mr Knightley returned from the call, he told everyone that I had refused to respond to the call, and that I should be ashamed of myself for not responding to a child who had fallen. My Knightley had reportedly said this to my colleagues at Northern General Hospital ("the Hospital"), while I was out on a call and at the end of the shift in the Mess Room. I felt that Mr Knightley was trying to make me feel stupid in front of my colleagues. Mr Knightley reported me to my Clinical Supervisor and said I had refused to assist a child. This was incorrect, I did not attend because staff were not permitted to attend call outs during compulsory meal breaks. At the time, my Clinical Supervisor was [Person 3] asked me what had happened but did not take Mr Knightly’s complaint any further, he just shook his head and returned to his office.”

79. Colleague A’s account in her witness statement dated 28 January 2014, reports: “Whilst stood down on a meal break, Stephen Knightly rang the urgent line and asked for crew on an incident he was attending for a child that had fallen from a window, he was already informed that there were no crew available by comms. [Person 2] volunteered to go as she was up from meal break. Stephen Knightly told everyone that I had refused to go to the incident and reported me to [Person 3] who was C.S. at the time. Approx 2012”.

80. The incident is also referenced in the “Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects” document, for the purpose of the civil litigation, where she records that she was: “Ridiculed and demeaned [Colleague A] to colleagues”.

81. In oral evidence, Colleague A confirmed that she did not speak during this incident or say anything which could have been picked up by despatch over the radio. In cross-examination, Colleague A was adamant that she had not said that the Registrant should “fuck off” as she was on a meal break. She would not speak that way to colleagues.

82. Colleague A’s evidence was that the Registrant knew that she was in the Mess Room at Longley ambulance station because he had also been in the Mess Room when the job had been allocated to him.

83. The Trust investigation report records the Registrant’s response (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014) as:

“I was responding to a job where a child had fallen out of a 1st floor window and I passed the ambulance station and called Comms to request support but was told staff were on a meal break and no one was available. I later called the station directly and spoke with [Person 36], Locality Manager.

I heard [Colleague A] in the background saying tell him to f*** off we are on a snap. Another crew came and supported us. I thought she really was no interested in the job and it was at this time I lost professional respect for [Colleague A]".

84. The Registrant was asked in the internal investigation (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014) if he had challenged the Registrant in relation to this incident. He replied:

“I did challenge [Colleague A] about this and took her to one side, but her response was that she was on snap. Professionally I don’t hold a grudge.”

85. The Registrant accepted that he had expressed the view that Colleague A should be ashamed of herself. The context of this was him expressing professional disappointment with her attitude, but this was not done in a threatening manner.

86. The Registrant’s evidence was that he had not been in the ambulance station when the job was allocated to him; rather he and his colleague Ms SB had been parked up in the town centre, outside Waterstones, when the job was assigned to them.

87. On route they had passed Longley ambulance station and he had observed that there were two ambulances on site. He had subsequently telephoned the ambulance station, seeking a crew to attend in support. He had been informed that the crews were not available, as they were on a meal break. He was adamant that he had recognised Colleague A’s voice in the background, saying: “Tell him to fuck off, we are on a snap”.

88. The Registrant had subsequently had a conversation with Colleague A in which he had expressed his disappointment in her, and questioned whether she was in the right job role for the people of Sheffield. In cross-examination, the Registrant clarified that his disappointment was not in relation to the alleged comment, as he was unsure whether Colleague A knew it was him on the phone. Rather, he was expressing disappointment that she had not attended to support him, whilst conceding that Colleague A was under no legal obligation to do so, if on a meal break. His demeanour was more of disappointment than aggression. In cross-examination, he said that he had been “exasperated” and described the exchange as “weary”.

89. The Panel heard evidence from Ms SB, (a HCPC registered Paramedic) who had been working with the Registrant on the paediatric emergency call. She specifically confirmed that they had received the call whilst parked up between “Waterstones and Nero”.

90. Ms SB noted that they had conveyed the patient to Sheffield Children’s hospital and not Northern General Hospital, as alleged by Colleague A in her HCPC witness statement. She had not heard the Registrant making any derogatory comments about anyone – although she was unaware who Colleague A was. She described the Registrant, who had been her mentor for approximately two years (2010-2012) as being “very professional” and if he was planning to say anything unprofessional, he was unlikely to have done this in her presence. She could not specifically recall the de-brief after the job, or any discussion regarding any of her then colleague’s performance, in relation to the job.

91. Ms Bass submitted, on behalf of the HCPC that the Registrant appeared aggressive because he was upset that he was unable to secure support more quickly for the injured child.

92. The Registrant submitted:

(a) He admitted using the words alleged but said it in “a weary, heartfelt way whilst also questioning if she were in the correct profession.”

(b) By the time he spoke to Colleague A the incident had been successfully concluded: “The backup came promptly, provided by a crew who did 'Jump' whilst on meal break. The child was treated and taken to the relevant resuscitation room, where their condition was stabilised. The incident had proceeded as well as it could have gone, so no, I don't agree that there was any state of heightened emotion leading to my statements coming across as aggressive or derogatory.”

93. The Panel was unable to find the Allegation proved on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons:

(a) Colleague A’s account that the Registrant knew she was in the Mess Room, as he was also there when the job was allocated, was significantly undermined by the independent evidence from Ms SB. She corroborated the Registrant’s evidence that they had been out in the vehicle when the call came through.

(b) Ms SB was a very credible and honest witness, who did her best to assist the Panel. She did not even know who Colleague A was.

(c) In these circumstances, on the balance of probability, the only explanation as to how the Registrant was aware that Colleague A was in the ambulance station Mess Room was because he had heard her voice, telling him to “fuck off” as she was on a meal break.

(d) The Panel’s findings on this issue, further undermined the overall credibility of Colleague A’s evidence, when considering those events for which there was no direct corroboration.

(e) The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s account that he spoke with Colleague A more in disappointment than anger was wholly credible. The incident was over, and his adrenaline would have subsided. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s description that the tenor of the exchange was “exasperated” or “weary” is more plausible than acting in an aggressive or derogatory manner.

(f) The Panel is not required to make a decision on whether it was advisable for the Registrant to confront Colleague A, bearing in mind she was on a compulsory meal break. However, his actions, in the context of hearing Colleague A swearing on the telephone, are explicable, given the high standards he held both himself and others to, although not amounting to aggressive or derogatory behaviour.

Particular 1. Schedule A (f): Not Proved

94. The Allegation is that on 17 December 2013, the Registrant said to Colleague A “There should be a DNAR in place on you” or words to that effect, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

95. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement was:

"On 17 December 2013, Mr Knightley was in the RRV and had responded to a patient who was having a cardiac arrest at Anchor Lodge Care Home, Sheffield. [Person 4] Emergency Care Assistant, and I were the back-up crew. During the incident, we attended the patient and Mr Knightley was making it quite evident that he was completely dissatisfied in the way I was assisting him and was very condescending towards me. This was witnessed by [Person 4] and staff at the care home.

The patient we attended was laid out on the floor in the doorway of their bedroom. There was no space to get around. I sat on my knees in the corridor with the bag we used for an advanced life support system. This bag contained items such as cannulation equipment, oxygen, the bag and mask, and fluids. I tried to assist Mr Knightley by passing him the equipment he needed from the bag. Mr Knightley kept huffing, pushed my hand away, and said that I had given him the wrong equipment.

A decision was made to take the patient to the hospital. [Person 4] offered to stay in the back of the ambulance with Mr Knightley and said "you're not staying in the back with him". I took this to mean that [Person 4] was aware of Mr Knightley's behaviour and aggression towards me, both on this specific call and in general. Mr Knightley's behaviour towards me was quite visible and [Person 4] had picked up on this. I drove the ambulance down to the Hospital.

Once the patient had been taken into the Hospital, Mr Knightley returned to the ambulance. Mr Knightley was stood in the back of the ambulance with [Person 4] and said "right, let's have a chat about [Colleague A’s] performance". Mr Knightley said that my performance was "diabolical" and that I was "useless". Mr Knightley directed these comments towards both myself and [Person 4]. I responded to Mr Knightley and said "we should be looking at your performance, how you were with me". Mr Knightley's behaviour towards me during the call and at the Hospital had been unprofessional and aggressive. [Person 4] intervened and said to Mr Knightley, "Steve, you were out of order". Mr Knightley did not verbally respond to Person 4’s comment, but appeared to back down and change his demeanour. It appeared to me as though Mr Knightley had expected [Person 4] to agree with him. Mr Knightley became quiet and started doing paperwork. We then drove Mr Knightley back to the care home so that he could pick up his RRV. During the drive, Mr Knightley turned around and said to me "you should have a DNAR placed on you". I just shook my head, I did not want to provoke him any further. Mr Knightley had been really condescending during the call, and I knew that if I responded he would carry on. I did not say a word on the drive back to the care home".

96. Colleague A’s account in her witness statement dated 28 January 2014, was:

“Attended an incident on 17th December 2013 with my crew mate [Person 4]. Stephen Knightly was on scene attended to a female in cardiac arrest. Stephen Knightly asked me for an airway whilst [Person 4] assisted with chest compressions. I went to get an airway from the blue bag and he shouted in an aggressive manner that he wanted the intubation kit, he pushed my hand to the side and grabbed the intubation kit, he then cannulated the patient in the jugular and was unsuccessful, he shouted for non adhesive dressing and then shouted" gauze in the cannulation kit. I then drew up a flush and he stated he didn't need it, he then asked me to attach the patient to the microvent and he snatched it from me and did it himself. After arriving at NGH myself and [Person 4] started to tidy the vehicle Stephen Knightly joined us on the vehicle and in a very condescending manner he said "Let's have a chat about A’s performance",. Whilst taking Stephen Knightly back for his vehicle he stated that he couldn't understand why there wasn't a DNAR on the grandma and that I was a grandma and I should have a DNAR in place.”

97. Colleague A was interviewed, as part of the Trust’s internal investigation on 7 March 2014. She described the above incident in similar terms and added, “Stephen was being very controlling and intimidating”.

98. The incident is also referenced in the “Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects” document, for the purpose of the civil litigation. Colleague A records her reaction to the incident: “Trying to make her look stupid” and describes this incident as the “the final straw”.

99. In oral evidence, Colleague A confirmed that a DNAR is a “Do Not Resuscitate Form”. She was able to recall the specific date of this incident, as it was the “final straw” and after this she began to record incidents involving the Registrant. She stated that the Registrant was “aggressive” and “quite nasty”. The Registrant was “obnoxious” with her, “pushing her hand away when she tried to give him equipment” and she contrasted that with the Registrant’s attitude to her male colleague. She described his behaviour as “not being professional.”

100. In cross-examination, Colleague A was adamant that the Registrant had asked for an oropharyngeal airway (OP airway) and that was what she had provided to him. She denied that there was any poor performance on her part, in failing to provide the Registrant with the requested equipment. Colleague A’s response was that the Registrant “should have given clear instructions.” She had not been required subsequently to undertake any retraining. Colleague A did thereafter allege that the Registrant had inappropriately administered shocks on the patient using the defibrillator but denied that this was a malicious accusation.

101. The Registrant denied the Allegation. In the Trust internal investigation report, the Registrant’s response (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014) was:

“I recall the incident well. It was early morning and the 2nd cardiac arrest in succession. I came on scene first. [Person 4] started to do compressions, I asked [Colleague A] to get the airway bag but she gave an airway. She could she I did not need this and never said if she did not hear me correctly. I told her what are you doing handing me an airway, I asked for the airway bag. I dd not ask anything else from [Colleague A] and [Person 4] did it all. She is a more senior member of staff to [Person 4] and I expect her to do more. She just stood behind and did nothing.”

102. The Registrant’s further response was:

“[Colleague A] drove [Person 4] and myself back. I have not been taught to manage a debrief and I said to A let’s have a talk about how rubbish [Colleague A] was om that last job. In retrospect it was wrong to do that but I have never had a complaint formally. She immediately went on the defensive. If she misheard me she did not ask for clarity and she could see I had already got an airway in.”

103. Person 4’s recollection of the incident (which is hearsay) is also recorded in the Trust’s internal investigation report (fact-finding interview 7 May 2014):

“Think something happened where [Colleague A] passed the wrong piece of kit. Different paramedics ask for different pieces of kit.”

104. Person 4 was asked about what happened after the incident:

“I vaguely recall he wanted to talk about the job.”

105. When asked if the Registrant directed any comments at [Colleague A], Person 4 replied:

“I did not feel particularly uncomfortable” and “nothing that I can remember.”

106. The Registrant’s evidence was that he had attended a cardiac arrest involving an elderly patient. He had already begun managing her airway with an OP airway. He asked Colleague A for an airway bag. She had handed him an airway, which he did not require. He had said “no” and grabbed his bag himself, and then intubated the patient.

107. The Registrant denied making any derogatory comments about Colleague A during the job. However, when on the way back from hospital to pick up the rapid response vehicle (RRV), he suggested having a discussion about “how rubbish” Colleague A’s performance had been. He reflected that he had not handled the situation well and that he had learnt a lot about how to handle debriefs in the last eleven years, including the use of “tact”.

108. The Registrant’s account was that there was a conversation about DNAR, but that this was not in any way aimed specifically at Colleague A. The context was that the cardiac patient had had to endure attempts to resuscitate her which would have an impact on her quality of life, if successful and he questioned why an elderly lady, and a grandmother, in a care home did not have a DNAR in place. He was unaware that Colleague A was a grandmother, commenting that he did not take much interest in his colleagues’ family lives.

109. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC submitted that it is likely that the Registrant intended his comment as a joke as he was providing feedback in a jokey manner but this is not how it was perceived by Colleague A who was feeling intimidated at the time.

110. The Registrant submitted:

(a) He attempted to initiate a debrief in a “jokey” manner but Colleague A did not perceive it in this manner.

(b) He relied on the account provided by Person 4 in the internal Trust interview as corroborating his account that the reference to DNAR was not aimed at Colleague A but was part of a more general discussion.

111. The Panel was unable to find this Particular proved on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons:

(a) The Panel is only required to make a finding in respect of whether the alleged comments were made by the Registrant regarding a DNAR, aimed at Colleague A. The Panel is not required to make any finding of fact about the professional performance of Colleague A.

(b) The Panel preferred the Registrant’s account about his reference to the DNAR. This is corroborated by Person 4’s Trust interview. Had the Registrant made the suggested comment, it is likely to have been recalled by Person 4, when interviewed in 2014, and regarded as a matter of some concern.

(c) The Panel found the Registrant’s account very credible. He made an appropriate concession, noting that his approach to the debrief had been lacking and that he had subsequently developed more “tact”. In addition, the Registrant placed his comments in a context which had a ring of truth about it, referring to the dignity of patients at the end of their lives.

(d) The Panel concluded that, on balance, Colleague A had misinterpreted the Registrant’s words and taken them in an unwarranted personal context, as she was herself a grandmother. It is possible that she was feeling vulnerable and overly defensive as the Registrant had questioned her professional performance on this specific job.

(e) The Panel concluded that any reference which the Registrant made to a DNAR was not aimed at Colleague A and was neither aggressive nor derogatory.

Particular 1. Schedule A (h): Not Proved

112. The Allegation is that on 26 December 2013, the Registrant approached Colleague A aggressively on two occasions and said: “Have you got anything to say?” or words to that effect, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

113. The Registrant admitted asking this question but denied that he behaved in an aggressive manner. The context was Colleague A’s formal complaint about his use of the defibrillator on 17 December 2013.

114. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement refers to only a single incident:

"On 26 December 2013, Mr Knightly and I were both on duty on separate shift patterns. Mr Knightly came into the Mess Room and very aggressively looked at me and said “have you got anything to say”. I just said “no”, he made me feel very intimidated and I felt very scared on him".

115. However, both incidents are referred to in Colleague A’s witness statement dated 28 January 2014:

“26 December at 06.10am, Stephen Knightly entered the mess room and in an aggressive manner asked me if I had anything to say to him. I just ignored him.

26th December 17.45 I was in the garage at Longley station talking to [MH] and again in an aggressive manner he asked me if I had anything to say to him at all. I replied no I have nothing to say. At 18.15 on the same date in the mess room, I was sat in the chair ands Stepehen Knightly was sat on the work surface at the side of the computer speaking to [Person 12]. We got a job and Stephen Knightly constantly glared at me until I left the mess room.”

116. Colleague A was interviewed, as part of the Trust’s internal investigation on 7 March 2014. She alleges that MH witnessed both incidents. In respect of the second incident, she states the specific words used by the Registrant where: “have you got anything to fucking say”. She alleges that Mr MH asked the Registrant: “What is your problem”.

117. Both the incidents on 26 December 2013, are also referenced in the “Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects” document, for the purpose of the civil litigation.

118. In oral evidence, Colleague A described the Registrant was “stood glaring aggressively”. She described his body language as “aggressive” and said that he “laughed in her direction".

119. The Registrant denied the Allegation. In the Trust internal investigation (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014). The Registrant said: “I cannot remember that at all. I would not do that at all".

120. The Registrant’s evidence was that he had asked Colleague A if she had anything to say to him. However, this was not in an aggressive manner. The context was that he felt that Colleague A had made a malicious complaint about his use of the defibrillator, arising out of the incident on 17 December 2023.

121. The Registrant pointed out that the Particulars of Claim (paragraph 21) alleged that Mr MH was a witness to the first of these incidents (timed at 5.45pm). Mr MH gave evidence that he was unable to recall this incident. This is in accordance with paragraph 111 of his witness statement:

“I see that it is also suggested that on 26 December 2013 I was speaking with [Colleague A] when Steve approached her and spoke to her in an aggressive way. I have no recollection of this. If Steve had spoken to [Colleague A] in the way suggested, I would definitely have said something to him about that and I would not have allowed that have taken place without remonstrating with him. I have no recollection of an incident of the nature described happening whatsoever.”

122. In oral evidence Mr MH confirmed that he had never witnessed the Registrant being aggressive towards Colleague A.

123. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that Colleague A’s recollection was likely to be more accurate against a backdrop where Colleague A was feeling intimidated by the Registrant, being someone who describes himself as being assertive and likely annoyed that someone he does not have professional respect for, has raised a complaint about him.

124. The Registrant submitted:

(a) Colleague A has been inconsistent as to whether there were one or two incidents.

(b) He admits making the comments, but: “…It was in reference to the false accusation made against me, of shocking asystole. I stress, this was not said in an aggressive or derogatory way, it was an honest question as to why she had made such an inaccurate claim.”

(c) He was aware that Colleague A had made a complaint against him. His behaviour was therefore “under the microscope” and hence he would not have acted in such manner.

(d) His account is supported by the evidence from Mr MH.

125. The Panel was unable to conclude that the incident occurred in the manner alleged, on the balance of probabilities, for the following reasons:

(a) Colleague A’s accounts have been inconsistent as to the number of occasions the Registrant spoke to her and the words allegedly used.

(b) The Registrant’s account is corroborated by Mr MH. The Panel found him to be a credible and honest witness on this issue and accepted his evidence that had he heard the Registrant being aggressive he would have remonstrated with him.

(c) The Panel concluded that the Registrant was probably unwise to have raised the issue with Colleague A, given her complaint about him. However, the Panel accepted that this would be consistent with his direct approach, believing that he had acted appropriately on 17 December 2013 incident, and that Colleague A had made an allegation against him to deflect from his criticism of her professional performance.

(d) The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s forthright approach might have come across subjectively as anger to Colleague A but could not find on balance that it was objectively aggressive or derogatory.

Particular 1. Schedule A (i): Not Proved

126. The Allegation is that on 27 December 2013, the Registrant glared aggressively at Colleague A, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

127. The evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement is:

"I saw Mr Knightly again on 27 December 2013 in the garage at Longley. Mr Knightly was stood chatting to [Person 6], Emergency Care Assistant. Mr Knightly saw me and kept glaring at me. [Person 6] said to him “what’s the matter Steve?” and he said “nothing, I am just happy to be in work” and laughed in my direction".

128. Colleague A’s account in her witness statement dated 28 January 2014 was: “27th December at 06.10am, Stepehen Knightly was in the garage at Longley station and I was talking to my colleague [Person 6]. Stepehen Knightly was glaring at me and I said to [Person 6] he was glaring. [Person 6] asked him if anything was wrong which he replied he was happy to be at work and laughed”.

129. The incident on 27 December 2013, is also referenced in the “Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects” document, for the purpose of the civil litigation.

130. The Trust’s internal investigation report records Person 6’s recollection of this incident:

“Only thing I can recall about the incident was being in the garage checking the vehicle when [Colleague A] came to me and said he has done it again.”

131. The Registrant denied the Allegation. In the Trust’s internal investigation (in his fact finding interview dated 21 March 2014), the Registrant stated:

“I don’t come into contact with [Colleague A]. I do most of the work and she does the driving and carrying. I never know where I am with her. Sometimes she is nice and will make me a drink, whilst on other occasions I will just get a sour look from her.”

132. In evidence, the Registrant denied this Allegation. He questioned why he would behave in such a manner, in the knowledge that Colleague A had already raised a complaint against him, regarding his use of the defibrillator.

133. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that Colleague A’s recollection was likely to be more accurate against a backdrop where Colleague A was feeling intimidated by the Registrant, being someone who describes himself as being assertive and likely annoyed that someone he does not have professional respect for, has raised a complaint about him.

134. The Registrant submitted:

(a) Person 6 had not directly witnessed his alleged behaviour.

(b) He denied the Allegation.

135. The Panel was unable to find the Allegation proved of the balance of probabilities, for the following reasons:

(a) The Allegation was extremely vague. It is unclear how the Registrant is alleged to have glared in an aggressive manner.

(b) There is no corroboration of the alleged behaviour. On the contrary, both Mr MH and Ms SB said they had never seen the Registrant behave aggressively.

(c) The Panel concluded that the Registrant is likely to have been on his guard, following Colleague A’s complaint and hence would not have acted in the manner described, knowing he was under scrutiny.

(d) The Panel noted the context for Colleague A’s accusation that the Registrant had raised the question of her professional performance following the incident on 17 December 2013.

Particular 1. Schedule A (j): Not Proved

136. The Allegation is that in January 2014, the Registrant glared at Colleague A, and physically and/or verbally threatened her on several occasions, in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner.

137. The very limited evidence from Colleague A in her witness statement is:

23. In January 2014 I went to Colleague G and mentioned that Mr Knightley’s behaviour towards me had worsened. I explained that whenever I crossed paths with Mr Knightly, he would glare and smirk at me and I felt threatened by him. I was too intimidated and too scared to come into work.

138. In the Claimant’s Chronology of Events and Effects document, for the purpose of the civil litigation, it states: “Glaring, smirking and threatening. Up to 3 to 4 times a day when working together. Aggressive, threatening, unprofessional, belittling, undermining. Laugh in her face sarcastically. Calling her useless on numerous occasions. Stare at her whilst on job or in station. Walk up to her really close then walk away. Sit across the table and stare”.

139. Colleague A’s statement dated 28 January 2014, does not make any specific reference to incidents which occurred in the month of January. However, there is a more generic paragraph:

“When Stephen Knightley is present, I feel extremely intimidated and uncomfortable…, when Stephen Knightley is around Longley Station and I would feel unsafe if left alone with him, I do make a point of being with another colleague to try and avoid any confrontation".

140. The Registrant denied the Allegation. He pointed out that the Allegation was vague and largely unparticularised. Colleague A had stated that she had a Dictaphone with her, but had not recorded any such incidents. He alleged that this is because the events had not taken place. Had there been incidents where he had threatened her physically or verbally, Colleague A would have formally reported these to the Trust, documenting the dates and times.

141. Ms Bass, on behalf of the HCPC, repeated her earlier submissions. The Registrant took a similar approach.

142. The Panel was unable to find the Allegation proved on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons:

(a) There is no evidence of any specific incidents dated in January 2014.

(b) The HCPC adduced no evidence of any verbal or physical threat which is alleged to have occurred in January 2014.

(c) At its height, Colleague A appears to have reported alleged incidents in January 2014 which occurred, at the latest, in the previous year. These are vague and unparticularised, such that the Panel was unable to place any weight on them.

(d) The Panel further noted that despite Colleague A having been advised to write her complaints down, and evidence that she was carrying a Dictaphone when in work, she did not use it, and has made no note of any specific allegation.

(e) The Registrant denied the Allegation and for the reasons set out above, the Panel preferred his account of events.

 

 

No information currently available

No notes available

History of Hearings for Stephen Knightley

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
29/04/2024	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Not well founded