HCPTS |

Profession: Paramedic

Registration Number: PA44607

Interim Order: Imposed on 08 Gor 2022

Hearing Type: Final Hearing

Date and Time of hearing: 10:00 14/06/2023 End: 17:00 15/06/2023

Location: Virtually via videoconference

Panel: Conduct and Competence Committee

Outcome: Suspended

Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.

Allegation

As a registered Paramedic (PA44607) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction in that:

On 20 July 2022 at Hull Crown Court you were convicted on indictment of causing death by dangerous driving
By reason of your conviction your practise is impaired.

Finding

Preliminary matters:

Application to hear part of the hearing in private

1. It was apparent that issues of health relating to the Registrant may be raised during the hearing or in the written determination. Accordingly, Ms Navarro invited the Panel to consider going into private session if and when any such matters were raised. The Registrant supported the application.

2. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that, although the general rule is that hearings are to be in public, it is open to a Panel to go into private session when dealing with matters relating to the health or private life of a registrant. The Panel decided that when, and if, such matters were raised they would be heard in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant.

Admissions

3. The Allegation was read out and the Registrant was invited to indicate whether he admitted the matters alleged. The Registrant said he admitted the conviction and also that his current fitness to practise was impaired. The Panel took these admissions into account when reaching its decisions on the facts and current impairment.

Background:

4. The Registrant is, and was at all material times, registered as a Paramedic with the HCPC.

5. At the relevant time the Registrant was employed by Yorkshire Ambulance Service (“YAS”).

6. On 20 July 2022, at the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Hull, the Registrant pleaded guilty to the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, committed on 26 June 2021. He was sentenced on 26 July 2022 to five years and four months imprisonment. He was disqualified from driving for a period of five years (extended by two years and eight months to reflect the period to be spent in custody and until the extended test is passed).

7. In sentencing the Registrant, the Judge provided more detail, saying the following:

“[Person A] was fifty-six years old on 26 June 2021 when he was killed by your dangerous driving. He had achieved a great deal in his life, both professionally and domestically. He would have continued to excel at whatever he turned his hand to had he lived. All men with children like to think of themselves as a family man. Person A truly was. He was married to [redacted] for twenty-five years and they had five children together. [Person A] and [redacted] kept in touch after the divorce and her grief in his passing is huge. One only has to listen to the very moving and eloquent victim personal statements from [Person A’s] children to appreciate the devotion and love that he had for them and they for him. [Person A’s] death has left a great void in the lives of his family and that will never be filled. They have suffered greatly in the aftermath of their father's death which was so unexpectedly sudden and alarmingly violent. Their grief is unimaginable and long lasting.

We cannot turn the clock back. No sentence I impose will restore [Person A] to his life, and nor will it assuage the grief, immense grief, of his nearest and dearest. One day your sentence will end. You will have the luxury denied to [Person A] of making something of your life once again. However, having read about you as I have, and heard very eloquently from your counsel, I believe you will always carry the guilt of your shameful conduct on 26 June 2021. It is a burden you deserve to bear but it is nothing to the burden borne by others.

You have to be sentenced for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. On 26 June 2021 you were out in Withernsea drinking. I accept that at the time you were drinking you had no intention of driving, but nevertheless you drank ten pints or so of Guinness. I accept what I have been told about, the fact that you were assaulted in 2019, that work pressure and COVID have combined to make life difficult for you. I do not know precisely what was going on at work, Mr Woodruff, but there was some sort of relationship with a lady called [redacted]. It is noteworthy that you regarded her as your girlfriend immediately after this collision. She was having a party at her house and you were not invited. There had been an issue between you and [redacted] in the days leading up to this incident and it may be that that was part of the reason why you were drinking so much.

During the evening on 26 June you decided that you were going to go to this party even though you were uninvited. By now of course you had had far too much to drink. You walked home. Your wife, to her credit, prevented you from driving the car. She could tell that you were in no fit state to drive. She was looking after your children and putting them to bed and did not want you around so told you to go to your father's who lived around the corner. He was not quite as careful about letting you drive as your wife and he gave you the keys to his car, something I am sure he now regrets. You then in a totally unfit state decided to drive the seven miles to the party to which you were not invited. You will have known the roads well because you lived in the area.

The story starts by you aggressively tailgating another car, no doubt in a hurry to get to this party, and then you overtook it in a dangerous manner and at excessive speed. But that was not the cause of what was then to happen. Because you were not fit to drive at all because of the amount of alcohol you had had, and the fact - and this is an important feature - you were looking at your mobile phone on the passenger seat next to you. I accept that you had made calls on the phone using the handheld device. I am not saying that you were making a call or using the phone at the time, but you were looking at it for a prolonged period of time, someone said twenty seconds. The witnesses speak of you not looking at the road but looking down at the passenger seat, and you veered across the road, straight into the path of [Person A], who was a competent cyclist, he was correctly positioned in the road, and correctly attired. You simply did not see him and did not even notice that you had veered across the road.

The effects of that collision were catastrophic in their brutality. Luckily the family know of what happened to [Person A] and so hearing it in court was not a complete surprise, but it must have been once again very distressing. He, it is to be hoped at least, died instantly with this collision given the traumatic and catastrophic injuries he suffered. At the scene you accepted that you had been driving badly, that you had been drinking, that you swerved, and I accept entirely Miss Baines' point that you have not sought to shirk your responsibilities in this respect. I made the point to her that the fact that you have found other employment having lost your employment as a paramedic and chose to drive was somewhat insensitive, but I accept the motivation behind it.

As far as you are concerned this is a disaster, not as big a disaster as for others but for you nevertheless a disaster. You are in my view, apart from this incident, a good person. You have worked hard. As Miss Baines says, you have dedicated yourself to saving lives not wrecking them. You were a paramedic for seven years. Two things stand out from the references I have read. Firstly, how much you enjoyed the work, and secondly, how good you were at it. All of that is now at an end. Your relationships with your family are strained as a result of this and of course there will be an impact on your own family, your wife and your daughters. But of course, as I have said already at the outset, you must bear in mind that others are bearing a greater burden than you.”

8. In deciding on the appropriate sentence, the Judge said:

“It is accepted that this is a level one offence with a starting point of eight years, and there are factors of this case which increase the starting point. The combination of heavy drinking and driving when you were plainly not fit to drive. It was two hours forty minutes after the incident when you were providing a specimen which showed you were then over two times the limit for driving, but it is the prolonged distraction of looking at your phone on the passenger seat also that made you completely oblivious to moving across the road. That, in my submission, together with the gravity of the seriousness of the collision itself, make the starting point higher than eight years.

However, that said, there are some mitigating features that reduce the starting point. They are generally your good character, and I do not confine myself to saying no previous convictions I mean good character. There is the good character provided by the fact that you have driven for a living and it is recognised in the guidelines that that is a genuine mitigating feature. I am satisfied also that there is and has been from the outset here genuine remorse. I asked your counsel to read out your letter for a purpose because I know that [Person A’s] family are dubious about how sorry you are, and it seems to me that your letter did express genuine remorse for what you did and understanding of how much damage you have caused, and so it was important for them I thought that they should hear it from you. But you must understand that only a custodial sentence of some length has to be imposed and I know that you do understand that.”

9. In a statement provided for this hearing the Registrant said that there was no dispute into the allegation and he was not providing a defence to anything he had done. He said how he had worked for YAS for eight years, he loved his job and was passionate about helping and caring for the public. He had an unblemished career, he was a mentor for student Paramedics and a College Liaison for the College of Paramedics. He has received a Queen’s Jubilee Medal for service and also a recognition of excellent clinical practice following a paediatric cardiac arrest at his local community school, a school in which he volunteered to deliver ‘Restart a Heart’.

10. Whilst emphasising that he was not providing a defence for what happened, he said that a contributing factor was being assaulted in 2019, resulting in a hospital admission, having been knocked unconscious on a night out with friends. He had a broken nose and received stitching to his face, which left visible scarring. He returned to work after 10 days thinking he was alright but on reflection believes he had not had time to recover. He said he worked hard on the frontline during the COVID pandemic, which “had an enormous strain on my work/family life.” He was away from his family for days on end, often residing at another address to avoid the risk of passing COVID to his young family.

11. [In Private]

12. The Registrant said he believed in rehabilitation and allowing people another chance and that he had support from family, friends and the local community, who are keen for him to keep his registration as a Paramedic. He said that his references show that he is an excellent Paramedic, as was supported by the Judge’s sentencing remarks. He referred to his Counsel’s comment about how he has “dedicated his life to saving lives and not wrecking them.” He said the criminal charge was not a true reflection of who he is as a person and as a professional.

13. In his concluding remarks, the Registrant said he was aware that the public must have trust and confidence in Paramedics and that his criminal charge had “crossed that threshold”. He was adamant, however that he did not present a risk to the public and there was no risk of repetition. He said there were many influencing factors in 2021 that led to his decline and the “unfortunate accident” but that these had been addressed. He referred to his rehabilitation, the evidence from his references and his past "excellent clinical practice” to “show positives towards keeping my registration and for me to continue to do something that I loved, was committed to and something that I was passionate about.”

14. The Registrant asked that the Panel consider all options available regarding the future of his registration. He said he was committed to completing his BSc Top Up and that he would work with the HCPC with any recommendations they deem necessary. It was not his intention to return to the Ambulance Service but rather to work in a medical capacity in other areas.

15. The Registrant provided a number of references from Paramedics who spoke of his excellent, exemplary work, his compassion, how highly regarded he was by his crew-mates and the calming influence he had in some highly emotional jobs and scenes that he attended. He was described as a valuable asset to the profession and that it would be a great loss if he were unable to continue to practise.

16. The Registrant was asked a number of questions by the Panel and provided what the Panel considered to be honest and sincere answers. He apologised for not having mentioned remorse in his written submissions and said he was “sincerely remorseful for everything I have done and the wider impact it has, on the family and also the public and everyone I served for.” He also apologised for not having evidence of the courses he had been on whilst in prison. He added that he had worked with his Offender Manager to do work on victim awareness and emotional well-being, which had some counselling elements to it and which encouraged him to reflect on the catastrophic incident that happened that night.

17. The Registrant also answered questions about his future intentions, saying he no longer wished to work as a front line Paramedic but was keen, in due course, to able to work in a medical capacity in some form of health and safety role in the offshore industry.

Decision on Facts:

18. In reaching its decisions on the facts the Panel took into account all the documents relied on by both parties, together with the submissions made. The Panel also heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

19. The Legal Assessor referred the Panel to Rule 10(1)(d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which states:

“Where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based.”

20. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that the Allegation was proved by virtue of the Certificate of Conviction issued by the Crown Court at Kingston-Upon-Hull on 20 July 2022. Furthermore, the Registrant admitted the Allegation.

21. Accordingly, the Panel found the facts as set out in Allegation 1 proved.

Decision on Statutory Ground:

22. The Panel next considered the statutory ground. Because this is a conviction case, and the Panel had been provided with the Certificate of Conviction, the Panel found the statutory ground to be made out.

Impairment:

23. Having found the statutory ground of conviction to be well founded, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired as a result of that conviction. In doing so it took into account the submissions made together with the documents provided by both parties. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

24. The Panel had been advised by the Legal Assessor that an important factor when considering current impairment is whether the conduct which led to the allegation is remediable, that it has been remedied and that it is highly unlikely to be repeated. The level of insight shown by the Registrant is also an important factor when considering current impairment.

25. The Panel considered the Registrant had demonstrated good insight into his offending behaviour and the devastating impact it had had upon Person A and Person A’s family. He also recognised the impact of his behaviour on the wider public and the profession, where he was required to drive ambulances as part of his role as a Paramedic. The Registrant was able to identify factors in his life which led to this out-of-character moment and has taken active steps to address them.

26. [In Private]

27. Whilst in prison he was required to attend a Victim Awareness Course, which he said provided good insight into reflecting on both the direct and indirect victims of his offence and the personal loss to the victim’s family and said “it made me reflect on everything that goes with that.”

28. [In Private]

29. With reference to his prison sentence, the Registrant said that he is now residing in Open Conditions. He has been assessed as low risk to the public and released on licence into the community to rebuild family ties, employment and further education opportunities. He has also committed to further education, completing a NEBOSH (the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) qualification and also mentoring in education, helping fellow prisoners.

30. The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is very serious. The outcome all too painfully obvious. As the Judge rightly pointed out, “you will always carry the guilt of your shameful conduct on 26 June 2021. It is a burden you deserve to bear but it is nothing to the burden borne by others.” However, it is not this Panel’s role to punish the Registrant, but rather to ascertain whether he represents a continuing risk to the public, and/or his actions are likely to undermine confidence in the profession and consequently whether his current fitness to practice is impaired.

31. The Panel accepted the Judge’s view that the Registrant’s remorse in this case is genuine. The Panel was also satisfied that this behaviour was out of character. The Registrant has clearly reflected long and hard on his actions and will no doubt continue to do so. He has demonstrated good insight into the impact his behaviour had on Person A, Person A’s family and also the profession and wider public. He has taken active steps to address the issues impacting his life at the time of the offence and the Panel is satisfied that the risk of repetition is low. Applying the guidance in the case of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing Midwifery Council and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant was not liable in the future to put the public at unwarranted risk of harm, not liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute and not liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. That he had done all these things by his actions on 26 June 2021 was not in doubt.

32. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is not impaired on public protection grounds.

33. The Panel went on to consider whether this was the type of case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator and to uphold professional standards. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. The Panel considered that a member of the public would be extremely concerned, indeed appalled, if the Regulator took no action in a case where a Paramedic, albeit whilst not at work, but who drives ambulances for a living, drank an excessive amount of alcohol and then drove a car whilst more than twice over the drink drive limit, killing an innocent cyclist. There was clearly a need to send out the message to the profession that this sort of behaviour is wholly unacceptable and not to be tolerated.

34. The Panel considered this behaviour to be a clear breach of Standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics, which states: “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

35. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had yet to complete his prison sentence from the Court and that, in accordance with the principle enunciated in the case of The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v (1) General Dental Council (2) Alexander Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin), he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he had satisfactorily completed his sentence.

36. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on public interest grounds and that the allegation of impairment is well founded.

Sanction:

37. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made, together with all the written evidence and all matters of personal mitigation. The Panel also referred to the guidance issued by the Council in its Indicative Sanctions Policy (“ISP”). The Panel had in mind that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish the Registrant, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct and performance. The Panel was also cognisant of the need to ensure that any sanction is proportionate. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

38. The Panel found the following mitigating factors:

• prior to this matter no previous criminal convictions and no disciplinary history with the HCPC;

• he had been working in a very worthwhile and laudable public service in the caring profession;

• an isolated incident;

• positive professional character references which spoke of the Registrant’s excellent, exemplary work, his compassion and that he was an asset to the profession, although no mention was made of the offence;

• genuine remorse

• good insight into his offending behaviour and the causes of it;

• active remedial steps taken to prevent a recurrence.

39. The Panel did not identify any aggravating features, but noted that the offence was a very serious one indeed, as reflected by the custody sentence of five years and four months and the devastating impact on the friends and family of Person A. There was also a clear breach of Standard 9.1, as detailed above.

40. In light of the very serious nature of the conviction, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case in which to take no further action.

41. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would adequately reflect the seriousness of the conviction. The Panel’s role, as indicated by the ISP, was not to punish the Registrant twice for the same offence, but to protect the public, maintain high standards amongst registrants and maintain public confidence in the profession. The Panel did not consider that such an Order would adequately mark the seriousness of the behaviour.

42. This was not a case where conditions of practice would be appropriate because of the nature of the Registrant’s conduct and the fact that he has a long prison sentence to serve. The Panel considered that conditions would not satisfy the public interest and would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s offending behaviour.

43. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The ISP states that, “A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a Conditions of Practice Order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

44. The Panel considered all these factors to be satisfied in this case. The Registrant’s actions do represent a serious breach of the Standards, he does have insight, his conduct is unlikely to be repeated and there is evidence to suggest he has resolved his failings. The Panel also took into account paragraph 82 of the ISP which echoed the case of Fleischmann referred to above, where the High Court stated that as a matter of general principle, where a registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence, he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence. This had direct relevance to this case because the Registrant had been convicted of a serious criminal offence and his prison sentence would not be completed for some time.

45. Before deciding whether a Suspension Order would be appropriate in this case the Panel looked at the guidance in the ISP on making a Striking Off Order. The guidance states that,

“A striking off order is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving:

• dishonesty;

• abuse of professional position, including vulnerability;

• criminal convictions for serious offences;

• violence.

A Striking Off Order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:

• lacks insight; or

• is unwilling to resolve matters.”

46. The Panel has already referred to the Registrant’s insight and willingness to resolve matters. There is no doubting the seriousness of the conviction in this case. However, as referred to above, it is not this Panel’s role to punish the Registrant for a second time, but rather to ensure public confidence is maintained in the Paramedic profession and the HCPC as its Regulator. It is clear that the Registrant’s appalling behaviour must be marked so as to send out a message to the Registrant, the profession and the public about how seriously the Panel views this conduct. However, in light of the specific circumstances of this case and the mitigation provided, the Panel did not consider the Registrant’s conduct to be fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. He had demonstrated significant insight and was clearly willing, and had taken active steps to, resolve matters. Although it would be some time before he had completed his prison sentence, and thus be in a position to resume his practice, the Panel did not consider it necessary to remove him from the Register. It was apparent that he had been a most valued member of the profession before this incident and had indeed dedicated his life to saving lives and not to wrecking them. There is clearly a public interest in allowing an otherwise competent Paramedic the opportunity to return to practice in due course.

47. The Panel wanted the family of Person A to know that this did not mean they had not taken into account the devastating impact of the Registrant’s behaviour on them. It was conduct of the utmost gravity and the Registrant has rightly received a significant custodial prison sentence to reflect that. However, as referred to above, this Panel has a different role to play than that of a Judge in the Crown Court and different considerations to take into account.

48. Accordingly, the sanction in this case will be one of suspension from the Register for a period of 12 months, to reflect the gravity of the Registrant’s conduct. Imposition of a 12 month Suspension Order is the maximum that can be ordered at a Final Hearing, although it would be open to a reviewing panel, in due course, to extend that period, if it considered it appropriate to do so, particularly given the principle in the case of Fleischmann, referred to above.

49. The Panel considered any reviewing panel would be assisted by the Registrant’s continued engagement with this process.

Order

Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Robert Brierley Woodruff for a period of 12 months from the date this Order comes into effect.

Notes

Interim Order:
1. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Navarro on the need for an Interim Order to cover the period during which an appeal may be made and, if one is made, whilst that appeal is in progress. The Registrant did not raise any objection to the application.
2. The Registrant has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving at a time when he was more than twice over the alcohol drink-drive limit. He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five years and four months. This was most serious behaviour and the Panel considered that it would be wrong to allow him to resume practice until he has served his sentence. The Panel is of the view that, given the nature and seriousness of the offending behaviour in this case, public confidence in the regulatory process would be undermined if the Registrant were allowed to return to practice on an unrestricted basis during any appeal period. Although he remains incarcerated at the present time, the Panel has no control over when the Registrant may be released from prison and therefore has to take its own independent action in this regard. The Panel determined that the imposition of an Interim Order is in the public interest to cover the 28 day appeal period, or the time taken to conduct any appeal, in the event that one is made.
3. The Panel first considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient. However, for the same reasons as dealt with at the sanction stage, the Panel concluded that conditions would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case.
4. The Panel therefore decided to make an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001, the same being otherwise in the public interest. The Panel decided that this Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months to allow sufficient time for any appeal to be made.

This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

Hearing History

History of Hearings for Robert Woodruff

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
14/06/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Suspended