Stuart A Gray

The panel found the following:
Facts proved: 1
Facts not proved: N/A
Grounds: Conviction

Preliminary Matters

Service
1. The Panel was provided with a Service Bundle from which it noted that the Notice of Hearing dated 14 October 2024 had been served on the Registrant by post to his registered postal address. The Notice informed the Registrant of the date, time and place (virtual) of the hearing.

2. The HCPC also provided the Panel with a copy of the email header confirming delivery of the post and a certificate demonstrating the Registrant’s registered postal address. The Panel was satisfied that notice of the hearing had been served in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended) (“the Rules”).

Proceeding in absence

3. Mr Barnfield made an application for the Panel to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He referred the Panel to documents in the service bundle and to a letter dated 2 December 2024 from a solicitor who is representing the Registrant in the criminal proceedings.

4. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel that, pursuant to Rule 11, it had a discretion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant, if it was satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to inform him of the hearing. She referred the Panel to the cases of R v Jones [2002] UKHL 4 and GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162 and the factors set out in those judgments.

5. The Panel took time to consider the application. It took into account the submissions made by Mr Barnfield and accepted the legal advice of the Legal Assessor. It took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel bore in mind that the discretion to proceed in the absence of the Registrant must be exercised with utmost care and caution.

6. The Panel considered the correspondence from the Registrant in which he had expressed concerns regarding his own safety due to receiving correspondence in prison. It also noted the e-mail from the Registrant’s solicitor dated 2 December 2024 which confirmed that the Registrant is aware of the hearing and that he “does not wish to take part in the hearing and simply wishes to be struck off”. The Panel considered that the Registrant has waived his right to attend the hearing and that an adjournment was unlikely to secure his attendance.

7. The Panel noted that all reasonable steps have been taken by the HCPC to enable the Registrant to participate in the hearing if he wished to do so, including the option of attending the hearing by video link from prison. The Panel was therefore satisfied that any prejudice to the Registrant by not attending the hearing was by his own choice in electing not to participate in the hearing.

8. The Panel took into account that the Allegation concerned convictions which were serious and engage the public interest, and that there is a public interest in the expeditious disposal of the case.

9. Having carefully weighed the Registrant’s interests with the public interest, the Panel decided that it should proceed with the hearing in the Registrant’s absence and that this was fair and appropriate.

Background

10. The Registrant is registered with the HCPC as a Paramedic.

11. On 15 May 2023 at St Albans Crown Court the Registrant was convicted of the following offences:

a. Sexual activity with a child.
b. Sexual activity with a child.
c. Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
d. Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
e. Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
f. Rape.
g. Rape
h. Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.
i. Voyeurism.
j. Making indecent photographs of children (Cat A).
k. Making indecent photographs of children (Cat B).
l. Making indecent photographs of children (Cat C).
m. Making indecent photographs of children (Cat A).
n. Making indecent photographs of children (Cat B).
o. Making indecent photographs of children (Cat C).
p. Sexual activity with a child.
q. Sexual activity with a child.
r. Sexual activity with a child.

12. For these offences, the Registrant was sentenced to a sentence of 20 years imprisonment for the offence of rape (which involved six rapes), with a four year extension, and concurrent sentences for the remaining offences. The extended sentence was imposed because the court concluded that the Registrant was dangerous, and an extended licence period was required to protect the public from risk of serious harm. A Sexual Harm Prevention Order was also made.

13. HH Judge Sheridan’s sentencing remarks provide further details and outline the seriousness of the Registrant’s offences.

“The defendant was a paramedic, and a well-qualified paramedic at that. And he and the victim of this case [Person A1], came to know each other when she was 11 or 12 years of age at the time. ….And shortly after her 13th birthday, she expressed an interest in kissing and the defendant took advantage from that moment on to saying he would show her how sexualised kissing was done.
He was 50. So there’s a massive discrepancy in age. He doesn’t have to be a paramedic to know that was wrong. It was obvious to any man that the kissing of a little girl like that is wrong. And that was the start of what would turn out to be the most appalling corruption, or attempted corruption, of a little girl to perform sexual acts as an abused child over the next three years that incrementally increased from kissing to masturbation, to vaginal contact, to digital penetration, and oral penetration. It is a horrendous piece of activity that is reflected in this indictment.”

14. Person A1 was vulnerable as explained by the Judge.

“He knew that she had been abused by a member of the family, horribly”.

15. The Judge also cited the Crown’s opening note as follows:
“The defendant manipulated her into believing that before he could teach her all the truth of being an angel she had to learn the physical aspects of sexuality and he was the one to teach her this. It would take years to teach her all that she needed to know. She did have to control her angelic energy every night in the way he taught her. However, the only way in which she could properly manage her angelic energy was to release her sexual hormones. The only way to achieve that was through sexual intercourse and that is the key to managing her powers as an angel.”

16. In respect of future risk and dangerousness, the Judge highlighted the following:
“The sheer length of the grooming to enable him to conduct himself to have full sex is a feature that I think the court must have in mind when looking to the future and I’m going to. To keep that sort of pretence up for that length of time, such that she would believe him, such that her older sister came to believe in him and trust him as well, not necessarily as an Archangel, just shows the sheer patients. And it is a grooming exercise that is of a sort that’s so long that it – alarm bells must be ringing when you look at his conduct.”

“I consider this defendant to be very dangerous and he’s very dangerous because – although he will be older on his release as learned counsel have pointed out – words don’t seem to trouble him, they seem to flow very easily and from on high. And he knew and still knows how to spot an easy target. The other evidence in the case shows that he picks on other targets for his sexual gratification, some of them not even knowing that they are targets, namely the filing, but I’m not…finding him dangerous because he might film, I think that he poses a very significant risk to members of the public occasioned by the commission of further offences.

17. The Judge described the images found on the Registrant’s electronic devices. They included voyeuristic videos of Person A1, upskirting, including in hospital waiting rooms when he worked as a Paramedic, and the following:
“He also videoed patients that he was taking to St Mary’s Hospital where he was working at the time, or taking the patients to St Mary’s Hospital at the time, and he actually headed some of them very, very crudely. So, he was in a position of trust when he was working as a paramedic and he absolutely breached that trust”.

18. In respect of the Registrant’s career the Judge commented:
“The sentencing remarks should be made available to any medical service or professional body dealing with this man so they understand exactly what his past is.” 

Findings of fact

19. The Panel was provided with a copy of a Certificate of Conviction which corresponded with particular 1. On the basis of the Certificate of Conviction, the Panel found particular 1(a)-(r) proved.

Decision on impairment

20. The Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Barnfield to the effect that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired having regard to the personal and public components of impairment.

21. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Notes on “Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired” and “Conviction and Caution Allegations” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

22. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant continues to pose a risk to members of the public. It noted the conclusion of HH Judge Sheridan that the Registrant was dangerous, due to the ongoing risk that he presents to members of the public, and the sentence imposed. HH Judge Sheridan also concluded that the Registrants regrets were only for himself and “that’s self pity”.

23. The Panel considered whether there has been any change in circumstances since 21 December 2023. The Panel was provided with correspondence from the Registrant dated 25 June 2024 and 23 September 2024. In this correspondence the Registrant expresses no regret and does not comment on the impact of his conviction on Person A1. He refers to the “horror” and the “horrific trial” that he experienced. The Registrant stated that “I love my profession and did the best job I could with respect to my patients”. The Panel found no evidence that the Registrant has insight into the impact of his behaviour on Person A1, or the other victims of his behaviour, including patients. The Panel was not provided with any information which indicated that the Registrant has reflected on the conduct which led to the convictions, or that he had undertaken any remedial work.

24. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s repeated conduct which had led to the convictions indicated attitudinal issues. The Panel was of the view that the conduct which underlies the convictions is not remediable.

25. The Panel concluded that there was a high risk of the Registrant repeating the conduct which resulted in the convictions in this case.

26. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Paramedic was at the time, and remained, impaired on public protection grounds, not least because in his work he would be expected to interact with the public, which could include children, but also because of the impact on patients of learning that a Paramedic had behaved in this way.

27. The Panel went on to consider whether a finding of impairment was required on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator and to uphold professional standards.

28. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant’s heinous behaviour has damaged public confidence in the profession and demonstrated significant breaches of fundamental tenets of the profession (Standard 13 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance, and ethics). The Panel concluded that members of the public would be appalled by a professional having convictions of this nature.

29. The Registrant’s behaviour involved a gross breach of the trust placed in him as a Paramedic. The Registrant’s initial contact with Person A1 was connected with his profession. The Registrant was engaging with a relative of Person A1 and providing guidance on matters relating to the profession. The voyeurism offence also involved a breach of trust in respect of the patients who were photographed or filmed. The Registrant’s behaviour caused severe harm to Person A1, who was a vulnerable person. The Registrant was assessed by the Judge as being dangerous to members of the public. The Panel’s assessment was that the Registrant’s behaviour was at the top end of the scale of seriousness for criminal convictions.

30. The public need to have confidence in the registrants who treat them. This is particularly important in the Paramedic profession because members of the public in need of the services of a Paramedic will often be in a vulnerable position; an example is that they may be in a state of undress. Members of the public are also entitled to expect registrants to act with decency, honesty and integrity. The Registrant’s offences, including the offence of rape, cannot be said to be acting with decency or integrity. Therefore, a finding of impaired fitness to practise is also necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare proper professional standards.

31. The Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired.

Decision on Sanction

32. Having found that the Allegation is well-founded and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel was required to consider its powers of sanction, pursuant to Article 29 of the Order.

33. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing, in error, omitted the power of the Panel to strike-off the Registrant. Mr Barnfield acknowledged this omission but pointed the Panel to other correspondence with the Registrant. The Registrant was provided with documents in addition to the Notice of Hearing that outlined the powers of the Panel including the power to strike-off. The Registrant had also stated, through his solicitor, that he wished to be struck off.

34. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor who confirmed that the Panel’s powers are contained in Article 29 and include the option to strike-off the Registrant. Rule 6 of the Rules sets out the requirements for the content of the Notice of Hearing, and this does not require the Registrant to be notified of the options that are available to the Panel.

35. The Panel was satisfied that its powers under Article 29 extended to all the available sanctions, including the option of striking-off. Notwithstanding the content of the Notice of Hearing, the Panel was also satisfied that the Registrant understood that this power was available, and that he anticipated and wished this sanction to be imposed.

36. Mr Barnfield made no positive submission on the matter of sanction, but outlined for the Panel the principles which he submitted should guide the Panel in its decision making. Mr Barnfield referred the Panel to the HCPC Sanctions Policy as guidance on relevant factors for the Panel to consider.

37. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction, the Panel took account of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel recognised that the purpose of any sanction it imposes is not to punish the Registrant, although it may have a punitive effect. Sanctions are imposed only for the purpose of protecting the public, maintaining trust and confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding professional standards. The Panel also had in mind that any sanction it imposes must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the case.

38. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to the cases of CHRE v GDC & Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 and PSA v GDC & Patel.” [2004] EWHC 243, concerning a Registrant’s return to practice whilst subject to criminal sanction. There is a “general principle” that an individual who had been convicted of a criminal offence should not be permitted to resume practice until he/she had completed their sentence. In some cases this general principle may need to bend to the requirement to impose a sanction which is just, proportionate and necessary to maintain public confidence.

39. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors.

40. The Panel noted that it has not been provided with details of any previous regulatory findings against the Registrant, but it did not consider that this was a mitigating factor, given the seriousness of the Registrant’s convictions.

41. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:
• Actual harm to Person A1, and the potential for harm to members of the public and patients;
• Breach of the trust placed in the Registrant as a Paramedic, both in respect of the Registrant’s introduction to Person A1 and in respect of the voyeurism offences relating to patients;
• Predatory behaviour;
• A pattern of behaviour escalating over a period of time;
• No evidence of insight, remorse, or apology;
• No evidence of remediation or any reduction of risk to the public.

42. The Panel considered that the case fell within all of the following categories of “serious” cases set out within the Sanctions Policy:
• Abuse of professional position - Paragraphs 67-69;
• Predatory behaviour – Paragraphs 71-72;
• Vulnerability – Paragraps 73-75
• Sexual misconduct - Paragraph 76-77;
• Sexual abuse of Children – Paragraphs 78-79;
• Criminal convictions and cautions – Paragraphs 80-84;
• Sex offender – Paragraphs 85-86;
• Offences relating to indecent images of children – Paragraphs 87-89.

43. The Panel considered the option of taking no action. The Panel decided that the option of taking no action would be insufficient to protect the public or to uphold the public interest.

44. The Panel next considered the option of a Caution Order. The Panel considered a Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the finding of impairment in this case, nor protect the public. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour were dealt with by way of a Caution Order.

45. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. The Panel was of the view it was not commensurate with the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction to impose a Conditions of Practice Order. It considered that this would not protect the public and that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the Registrant’s behaviour was dealt with by a way of a Conditions of Practice Order.

46. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order. The Panel had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy which provides:
“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;
• there is evidence to suggest the Registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

47. Having taken account of those factors, the Panel considered that a Suspension Order was not the appropriate order in this case. The Panel considered that there is a risk of repetition and there is no information that the Registrant has insight into the conviction. The Registrant’s behaviour over a period of time involved attitudinal issues, and HH Judge Sheridan considered that he remains a significant risk to members of the public.

48. Given the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s conviction, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and regulatory process would be undermined if a suspension order was imposed.

49. The Panel next considered a Striking Off Order.

50. The Panel was aware that this was a sanction of last resort, as set out in paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy for serious, persistent, deliberate, or reckless acts involving, among other things, abuse of professional position, sexual misconduct, sexual abuse of children or indecent images of children, and/or criminal convictions. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s convictions fell into all these categories. It involved intolerable abhorrent behaviour, and was of the utmost seriousness.

51. Paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy states:
“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
• …
• is unwilling to resolve matters 

52. In its decision on current impairment the Panel assessed the nature and gravity of the Registrant’s misconduct. The gravity of that conduct, including the impact on Person A1, was such that is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as a Paramedic. The Panel was satisfied, based on the nature and gravity of the conviction, together with the Registrant’s lack of insight, that a striking off order was necessary to protect the public, uphold the standards for members of the profession, and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

53. The Panel acknowledged that it must weigh the Registrant’s interests with the public interest, when determining sanction. In the current case the Registrant is serving a lengthy prison sentence, but a striking-off order may further damage the Registrant’s reputation. Having considered the seriousness of the convictions, together with the Panel’s finding of impairment, the guidance of the Sanctions Policy, and all the circumstances of the case, the Panel was satisfied that the public interest outweighed the Registrant’s interests, and its sanction decision is appropriate and proportionate.

54. The Panel therefore decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a Striking Off Order.

Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Stuart Gray from the Register.

Decision on Interim Order

1. Mr Barnfield made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for 18 months to cover the appeal period and allow for any appeal to be disposed of. He submitted that an Interim Order was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. In support of his contention that those grounds are satisfied he relied on the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issue.

2. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised that the Panel may impose an interim order if it is necessary for the protection of the public, is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the interests of the Registrant. The Panel should apply the principle of proportionality and impose the least restrictive order that is sufficient to protect the public and the wider public interest.

3. The Panel first considered whether it was appropriate to consider the application for an Interim Order in the Registrant’s absence. The Notice of Hearing advised the Registrant that such an application may be made. The Panel was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

4. In its decision on impairment the Panel decided that there is a high risk of repetition.

5. Consequently, the Panel concluded that an Interim Order is necessary for protection of members of the public. An Interim Order is also otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel for its substantive sanction decision.

6. The Panel considered whether Interim Conditions of Practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period, but concluded that they would not provide sufficient protection for the public.

7. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Suspension Order should be made.

8. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An Order of that length is necessary because if the Registrant appeals the Panel’s decision and Order, the final resolution of that appeal could well take 18 months. In the event that the Registrant does not appeal the decision and Order the Interim Suspension Order will fall away when the time within which he could have commenced an appeal expires.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Stuart A Gray