Wesley Weathers

Preliminary Matters

Amendment of the allegation

1. At the commencement of the hearing, the Presenting Officer applied to amend the Allegation. The sole element the HCPC sought to amend was to include the words, “As a registered Paramedic (PA41809):” before the body of the Allegation. The Registrant did not oppose the application.

2. The Panel, being of the view that the proposed amendment would ensure that the Allegation would be in proper form and accepted that it did not affect the substance of the case against the Registrant in any respect, acceded to the application.

The Registrant’s response to the Allegation

3. The Registrant was given the opportunity to respond to the Allegation as amended. On his behalf, Mr Lee stated that particular 1 and both limbs of particular 2 were admitted. The remaining elements of the Allegation were not admitted.

Background

4. In July 2021, the Registrant was working for the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“EMAS”). He had qualified as a Paramedic approximately four or five years earlier, but at that time he was working in the role of an Emergency Care Assistant (“ECA”).

5. On 15 July 2021, the Registrant was working with a colleague, IM, an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”). During the morning of that day, the Registrant and IM attended upon a patient referred to in these proceedings as “Service User A” in response to a 999-call concerning a suspected overdose. It being customary for ambulance personnel to swap roles during a shift, when the attendance upon Service User A was made, it was the Registrant who was categorised as the “Primary Crew”.

6. The timings of the events concerning Service User A, as taken from the Electronic Patient Report (“EPR”) were as follows:

• The request that Service User A should be attended was received by EMAS at 00:20.
• The Registrant and IM were assigned very nearly six hours later at 06:14, and were mobile within 15 seconds of being assigned
• The Registrant and IM arrived at the scene (the address where Service User A was living) at 06:23.
• The EPR was opened at 06:29.
• Service User A signed the EPR at 08:30.
• The Registrant signed the EPR, at which time the record was concluded, at 09:33.

7. The communications between the Registrant and Service User A which lie at the heart of this case commenced two days later, on 17 July 2021.

8. On 26 August 2021, EMAS was again requested to attend upon Service User A. On this occasion TW (an EMT) and a colleague attended. Service User A told TW that a member of a previous EMAS crew who had attended her, had been sending her messages on Instagram. Service User A allowed TW to photograph the Instagram messages that were stored on Service User A’s mobile telephone. TW reported what she had been told to an EMAS Manager.

Decision on Facts

9. It has already been recorded that at the commencement of the hearing, particulars 1 and 2(a) and (b) were admitted by the Registrant. There being no reason to question the basis upon which those admissions were made, the Panel accepted them. Accordingly, particulars 1 and 2(a) and (b) are proven.

10. With regard to the remaining factual particulars, namely particulars 3 and 4, the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor that the HCPC carries the burden of proving them, the standard of that burden being the balance of probabilities. In reaching its decision, the Panel has had regard to the entirety of the evidence, both oral and written.

11. The HCPC called a single witness to give evidence before the Panel, TW, whose involvement was described in paragraph 8 above. Included in the evidence of TW were the photographs she took of the Instagram messages on Service User A’s telephone, as well as her view of Service User A’s vulnerability when she attended upon her on 26 August 2021. The hearing bundle also contained documents, including the EPR completed by the Registrant on 15 July 2021, other clinical records relating to Service User A, various EMAS protocols and an undated and unsigned note of an interview of the Registrant conducted as part of an EMAS investigation.

12. The Registrant gave evidence before the Panel.

Particular 3 – At the time of the incidents set out at particulars 1 and/or 2 above, you knew Service User A to be vulnerable

13. In order to decide this particular, it was necessary for the Panel to decide if the HCPC had proved:

• that Service User A was, as a proposition of fact, vulnerable in the period during which the Registrant contacted her, namely 17 July 2021, to 25 August 2021;
• if it is established as a fact that Service User A was properly to be characterised as vulnerable in this period, that the Registrant knew that she was.

14. The Panel began its deliberations on this particular by deciding what meaning it should give to the word “vulnerable”. There is necessarily a sense in which any person requiring the attendance of ambulance crew is, at least potentially, in a vulnerable condition at that time. However, in the context of an allegation of the type being considered in this case, the Panel concluded that something more than that degree of vulnerability should be required. The conclusion of the Panel was that the approach should be for the HCPC to prove that Service User A was susceptible to an enhanced risk of emotional or physical harm.

15. In reaching its decision on whether Service User A was in fact a vulnerable person, it excluded from its consideration the view of TW that she was. That view was formed as a consequence of an interaction that post-dated the time relevant to the decision the Panel was required to make.

16. In reaching its decision on whether the HCPC had discharged the burden of proving that Service User A was vulnerable at the relevant time, the Panel relied upon the EPR dated 15 July 2021, and the content of the messages exchanged between the Registrant and Service User A.

17. Included in the EPR made on 15 July 2021 are the following entries:

• Under the heading, “PC [presenting condition]”: “Suicidal thoughts.”
• Under the heading, “HxPC [history of presenting condition]”: “24 YOF with long term mental health difficulties. pt has contacted crisis line stating suicidal ideation. Pt made mention to crisis team of OD of lamotragen, crisis line responded by contacting 999… Pt has knife beside her on bed … Pt states many attempts aat suicide over the past few weeks and previous sections. Pt has an appointment with crisis team and a cpn today at 15:00hrs…”
• Under the heading, “O/a”: “Let into building by security, PT answered the flat door, allowed crew inside after some resistance, states she has not called for an ambulance. Crew entered flat, 12 inch kitchen knife on bed, pt states she has no intention to harm crew, knife is present for self harm/suicide attempts.”
• Under the heading, “MENTAL HEALTH”: “crisis team, under consultant, previous suicide attempts, 5-6 overdoses, jump attempts, throwing herself into traffic, all over the last few weeks. Does not go out or engage with people currently. Previously under CAHMS” and listed under “Exacerbating factors”: family, lack f mental health support, current accommodation.”
• The EPR also recorded Service User A’s current medication to be Fluoxetine.

18. Another matter that is relevant to the issue of vulnerability is the length of time that was taken with Service User A, and the fact that a check was made with the crisis team that they were in fact due to visit Service User A later in the day, as she had stated.

19. With regard to the issue of vulnerability, the Panel does not consider it necessary to refer extensively to the messages exchanged between the Registrant and Service User A, but it notes that as early as 22 July 2021 (three days after Service User A responded to the Registrant’s initial message), Service User A stated that she was going to the “crisis house”. Further on 6 August 2021 Service User A told the Registrant that the police had put her “on some form of section that makes me have to go to the hospital with them”.

20. On the basis of the elements of the EPR referred to as well as the reference to the visit to the crisis house and the police section, the Panel concluded that the HCPC had discharged the burden of proving that Service User A was indeed a vulnerable person at the relevant time.

21. The Panel therefore turned to consider whether the Registrant knew that Service User A was a vulnerable person during the relevant period. His involvement in the attendance upon Service User A and the completion of the EPR were relevant matters. It has already been recorded that for the purposes of the attendance, he was the “Primary Crew”, which meant that he took the lead. He also confirmed in evidence that, although his colleague left Service User A’s flat for a short time to obtain a replacement battery, he was present throughout. It follows that the Registrant could not have been unaware of anything that was said or observed. Furthermore, although the Panel accepts that text could have been added to the EPR by his colleague, it was the Registrant who signed it off as a full and accurate account of the attendance.

22. Again, the length of the attendance upon Service User A, and the check made with the crisis team by the Registrant, is relevant to his knowledge of Service User A’s vulnerability. He clearly had knowledge of the content of Service User A’s Instagram messages to him.

23. At the relevant time the Registrant was a Paramedic who had been qualified for some years. He was told that Service User A was 24 years old when he attended, and it was recorded that she had previously been under CAMHS, and the combination of that information would have informed him that Service User A had been experiencing mental health issues for not less than about 6 years.

24. In the judgement of the Panel it is beyond doubt that the Registrant understood Service User A to be a vulnerable person on 15 July 2021. The Panel rejects the Registrant’s evidence to the effect that he did not consider her to be vulnerable because of the reassurances she proffered during the attendance. There are no factors that could have resulted in the Registrant believing that the long-standing problems experienced by Service User A that the Registrant himself discovered on 15 July 2021, had in any respect resolved or even reduced either prior to or during the period he was messaging her.

25. The consequence of these findings is that the Panel is satisfied that particular 3 is proven.

Particular 4 – Your conduct at particulars 1 and/or 2 above was sexually motivated.

26. In deciding the issue of sexual motivation, the Panel applied the test identified in the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”. Accordingly, the Panel applied the approach contained in paragraph 8 of that document, namely, whether the HCPC had proved that the Registrant’s conduct was done in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship.

27. When the Panel addressed this element of the Allegation, it considered the making of contact with Service User A (particular 1) as well the entirety of the messages sent by the Registrant to Service User A. As the contention of sexual motivation includes particular 2(a) as well as the particular 2(b) messages identified in Schedule 1, all are to be considered. In reaching its decision, the Panel reviewed all of the messages. It did so referencing their dates and also paying close attention to the messages from Service User A that preceded them.

28. The Registrant stated that Service User A was “suggested to him as someone he might know”, but the HCPC produced no evidence to the Panel how that might be possible. The Panel therefore makes no finding as to how the Registrant was able to make contact with Service User A via Instagram in the first place. However, what is known is that it was the Registrant who began the messaging by sending a message on the evening of 17 July 2021 that stated, “Hey [redacted] its the annoying paramedic from the other day. I hope you’re well. Just wondering how you got on in your meeting the other day? :)”. Service User A replied two days later, on 19 July 2021, and it is apparent from her initial replies that Service User A was seeking to establish who the Registrant was.

29. The Panel does not consider that it is necessary for an understanding of this case for the Panel to detail all of the exchanges message by message. Instead, the Panel proposes to summarise its findings as follows (reference to message numbers are to the numbers in Schedule 1 to the Allegation):

• The explanation given to Service User A for messaging (message 1), “… there’s something about you, I think you’re pretty cool …”, displays an interest in Service User A that goes beyond a mere welfare check.
• On the first day on which messages are exchanged, there is reference to Service User A being undressed (message 2), showering and being without clothes (message 3).
• On 24 July 2021, there is reference to “getting it on” (message 4) and “people having sex in the rooms” (message 5).
• On 29 July 2021, the innuendo, “… there’s something going on down there” (messages 9 and 10), and references to “what excites you” (message 13).
• On 30 July 2021, the reference to “facets” in messages is an innuendo (messages 14 and 17).
• By 2 August 2021, there are references to the Registrant giving Service User A, “… fully (sic) health check up. Or would a full body massage to you well?”, as well as “… I could certainly give you an in depth seeing to, with deep body massage of all your areas [emoji]. It’s a deal when shall we get started?” and “… I’m just finishing work so can come give your massage for an hour? Make sure your get the moisturiser ready lol’. (message 24, 25 and 26).

30. In cross-examination, the Registrant accepted that the messages he sent on 2 August 2021 (messages 24, 25 and 26) were attempts by him to invite himself to Service User A’s home for sex. In the judgement of the Panel those particular messages could not sensibly be read in any other way. However, the Panel rejects the Registrant’s contention that the messages commenced as a result of a genuine concern for Service User A’s well-being. In a message to Service User A he admitted that he had never messaged a patient on a previous occasion, yet he must have encountered many patients who were experiencing mental health problems.

31. It is relevant to the Panel’s finding that the Registrant knew Service User A to be a vulnerable person. It is also relevant that he knew (as recorded in the EPR) that Service User A was socially isolated. The conclusion of the Panel is that, when read as a whole and in the context of Service User A’s messages to him, the Registrant was steering the exchanges in a particular direction, and was persistent in doing so. The direction he was seeking to dictate was sexual in nature. The Panel finds that his motivation was, from the time he first messaged Service User A on 17 July 2021 to the conclusion of those messages, to pursue a sexual relationship with Service User A.

32. The Panel finds particular 4 to be proven.

Submissions on Misconduct and Impairment of Fitness to Practise

33. The Panel handed down its written determination explaining its findings of facts during the afternoon of Tuesday, 26 November 2024. The Panel allowed the parties time to consider the determination before proceeding to receive representations on the issues of misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise. Accordingly, the Panel decided that it would resume the hearing the following morning.

34. Before the hearing recommenced on Wednesday, 27 November 2024, it was provided with further documents. These were:

• Provided by the HCPC, two panel determinations concerning the Registrant:

- A final hearing that took place over seven hearing days held on various dates between 25 April 2022 and 21 October 2022. The finding against the Registrant was one of misconduct arising out of serious clinical shortcomings on 30 November 2018. The sanction imposed was a conditions of practice order for a period of 2 years;
- A review of the conditions of practice order imposed on 21 October 2022, conducted in October 2024.

• Provided by the Registrant, a bundle of documents that included:

-A document headed, “Reflective Statement on the Panel’s Decision”;
-A number of character references;
-A CPD certificate confirming that on 29 May 2024, the Registrant participated in, and passed, an online course entitled, “Professional Boundaries in Health and Social Care – Level 2”.
The Panel read these documents before receiving submissions.

35. On behalf of the HCPC, the Presenting Officer reminded the Panel that her submissions would include two distinct matters that would require separate consideration by the Panel, namely the issues of misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise. In relation to misconduct, she drew the attention of the Panel to various approaches to the term “misconduct” that had been advanced by the courts and identified certain standards of the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics. (These are set out below.) She submitted that a finding of misconduct would be appropriate in this case. The Presenting officer also drew to the attention of the Panel two HCPTS Practice Notes, namely those entitled, “Professional Boundaries” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment”, and to specific elements of those documents. The submission advanced by the Presenting Officer was that, whether the analysis was conducted by reference to the personal component and public component approach suggested in the HCPTS Practice Note, or by the criteria suggested by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Inquiry Report, a finding of impairment of fitness to practise was required. Finally, the Presenting Officer informed the Panel that the “case to answer” decision by the Investigating Committee in relation to the Allegation that resulted in the imposition of the earlier conditions of practice order was made on 21 July 2020.

36. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Lee stated that he did not propose to make any submissions on misconduct; he simply reminded the Panel that the issue was one for the judgement of the Panel. In relation to current impairment of fitness to practise, Mr Lee invited the Panel to take the view that the breach established by the Panel’s findings on the facts was remediable. He relied upon the reflection document the Registrant had prepared since the Panel announced its decision on the facts and submitted that the Registrant had shown some developing insight into his misconduct, and that there were signs from which the Panel could properly conclude that the Registrant’s misconduct could be remedied. Mr Lee referred to the Registrant’s participation in the hearing and the fact that he had exposed himself to scrutiny when he could have chosen not to participate in the hearing, and that he had offered a genuine apology for his actions. The thrust of Mr Lee’s submissions was that he urged the Panel not to conclude that the Registrant was a “hopeless case”.

Decision on Misconduct

37. The Panel approached this decision on the basis that for a finding to be made, it would be necessary to find not simply that there had been a departure from proper professional behaviour, but that the departure had been a serious one.

38. The Panel began by considering the HCPC’s Standards of conduct, performance and ethics that were in force at the time the misconduct occurred. It concluded that there had been a breach of the standards identified by the Presenting Officer in her submissions, namely:

• Standard 1.1, “You must treat service users and carers as individuals, respecting their privacy and dignity.”
• Standard 1.7, “You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional.”
• Standard 2.7, “You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.”
• Standard 9.1, “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

39. The Panel also considered that the Practice Note entitled, “Professional Boundaries”, was relevant to its decision on misconduct. In particular, paragraph 10 of that document which appears under the heading, “Factors affecting the seriousness of boundary breaches”. Adopting the lettering of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 10, the Panel considered that the following were relevant:

(a) “Seriousness of harm/risk of harm.” The Panel has not been provided with any evidence that Service User A suffered actual harm, but given her undoubted vulnerability, there was clearly a risk that she could have suffered not just significant emotional harm, but catastrophic harm given her vulnerability and especially her propensity to suicidal ideation.
(b) “Abuse of professional position…”. In the judgement of the Panel the Registrant did abuse his professional position, a fact demonstrated by the first message he sent to Service User A in which he referred to the fact that he had been a Paramedic who had attended upon her.
(c) “Power imbalance between the registrant and the other person …”. The power imbalance arose from the fact that the Registrant had knowledge of Service User A’s vulnerability arising from his professional contact with her.
(d) “Vulnerability of service user …” The Panel has found not only that Service User A was vulnerable, but also that the Registrant knew she was.
(e) “Predatory behaviour, …” In the judgement of the Panel, the Registrant’s behaviour, directed towards a vulnerable person whom he knew to be socially isolated, was persistent and directed towards the single goal of future sexual contact.
(f) “A pattern or behaviour …” While it is acknowledged that the Registrant’s behaviour was not directed towards anyone other than Service User A, it amounted to more than 200 messages over a period in excess of five weeks.

40. Taking all of these factors into account, the Panel concluded that this was a crossing of professional boundaries that was so serious it must result in a finding of misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

41. The Panel accepted that the decision it was required to make was not whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired in the summer of 2021 when the events occurred, but rather whether that past misconduct is currently impairing his fitness to practise.

42. The Panel first addressed the issues of irremediability and remediation. In the view of the Panel this issue cannot be resolved by simply deciding if it is possible not to breach proper professional standards in the future. It is obviously possible not to repeat behaviour of the sort found proved in this case. However, in order for the Panel to decide if it will in fact not be repeated it is necessary to understand why the Registrant behaved as he did. In the judgement of the Panel, it is simply not credible to believe that the Registrant could have been unaware that his behaviour was grossly inappropriate. That being so, it necessarily follows that it did occur because of a behavioural or attitudinal deficit on the part of the Registrant.

43. The Allegation decided in 2022 is relevant to the issue of attitude and behaviour. The circumstances of the misconduct in that case were very different to the misconduct that has been considered by this Panel. The misconduct established by this Panel occurred before the earlier final hearing, and it follows from that it did not amount to a breach that occurred after the conditions of practice order had been made. However, the Registrant’s actions with regard to Service User A did occur a year after he knew he would be facing a hearing in which his alleged misconduct was to be considered. It might have been expected that he would have been especially vigilant to ensure that his behaviour was not open to further criticism knowing that he would be facing that hearing in the future.

44. Finding that the misconduct arose because of a behavioural or attitudinal problem, in turn means that the misconduct is very difficult to remediate. The Panel has considered all of the matters urged upon it by Mr Lee and has considered the information contained in the bundle of documents served on the Registrant’s behalf. However, the conclusion of the Panel is that the Registrant has not demonstrated any significant insight into his behaviour in the summer of 2021. In his evidence before the Panel less than 48 hours before preparing his reflection document, the Registrant did not fully acknowledge his sexual motivation, and asserted that he did not recognise Service User A’s vulnerability at the time of messaging her. The Registrant was perfectly entitled to advance that case, and is not to be punished for having done so. But that is not to say that the Panel is required to exclude it from its considerations when it decides upon whether he has, two days later, reached a wholly different understanding. The Panel would also observe that the Registrant advanced his case before the Panel six months after completing the CPD course on professional boundaries identified in paragraph 34 above.

45. The conclusion of the Panel is that there remains a significant risk that the Registrant would fail to observe the proper professional standards he would know he should be observing. For that reason, the Panel has concluded that, upon consideration of the personal component, the Registrant’s fitness to practise continues to be impaired.

46. With regard to the public component, the Panel is of the clear view that it would be failing in its responsibility to declare and uphold proper professional standards were it not to mark the Registrant’s misconduct with a finding of impairment of fitness to practise. Furthermore, fair- minded members of the public with full knowledge of the circumstances would expect there to be a recognition of the unacceptability of the Registrant’s behaviour by that finding. It follows that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired upon consideration of the public component.

47. Expressing these findings by reference to the criteria articulated by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Inquiry Report, the Registrant:

• has in the past acted and is liable in the future to act so as to put a service user at unwarranted risk of harm;
• has in the past brought and is liable in the future to bring the Paramedic profession into disrepute; and,
• has in the past breached and is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the Paramedic profession.

48. The finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired has the result that the allegation is well founded. The Panel must therefore go on to consider the issue of sanction.

Decision on Sanction

49. The Panel handed down its written determination on misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise during the afternoon of Wednesday, 27 November 2024. It allowed the parties time to consider the document and received their submissions on sanction at the commencement of the hearing on Thursday, 28 November 2024.

50. At the commencement of her submissions, the Presenting Officer made it clear that she would not be urging the Panel to apply any particular sanction. She summarised for the Panel’s benefit, the proper approach to the making of a sanction. The Presenting Officer also identified a number of matters that emerged from the Panel’s finding on the Allegation that she submitted were aggravating factors. The Panel will refer to these factors when it turns to explain its reasons below. The Presenting Officer also suggested that the Panel could take into account the apologies tendered by the Registrant for any harm caused by his actions as well as his continuing engagement in the fitness to practise process as mitigating factors. The Presenting Officer identified various elements of the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy that the HCPC submitted were relevant to the decision to be made, particularly with regard to the types of case that could be considered to be serious cases. As already stated, the Presenting Officer did not contend that the Panel should impose any particular sanction, but she did submit that if the Panel decided on a lesser sanction than striking off, clear reasons should be given for that sanction not being thought to be appropriate.

51. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Lee drew the attention of the Panel to paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Sanctions Policy and the guidance on insight, remorse and apology, submitting that the Registrant had demonstrated some insight, having arrived at a genuine recognition of the concerns arising from his behaviour and had demonstrated empathy for the position of Service User A. With regard to the HCPC’s suggestion that the case is one of predatory behaviour, Mr Lee submitted that the Registrant did not take advantage of Service User A’s vulnerability, or take advantage of her, rather, his actions were clumsy attempts to flirt with her. With regard to the case being one of sexual misconduct, Mr Lee submitted that the Panel should accept that there is a sliding scale of seriousness of sexual misconduct cases, and that in deciding where on the scale of seriousness this case fell, it would be appropriate to take into account that the Registrant’s behaviour did not involve either sexual harassment or assault, that the Registrant did not intimidate Service User A and that there was a degree of reciprocity in the messages. When he turned to address specific sanctions, Mr Lee did not submit that a lesser sanction than suspension should be applied. He did, however, submit that the Panel should impose a suspension order, and urged the Panel to take the view that a striking off order should not be considered to be necessary. He advanced these submissions by reference to the suggested factors identified in paragraphs 121 and 131 of the Sanctions Policy. He asked the Panel not to equate any difficulty the Registrant would have in resolving matters with an unwillingness to do so. He submitted that there was real evidence of remediation and that the Registrant should not be considered to be a “hopeless case”. With regard to public protection, Mr Lee submitted that a suspension order would protect the public while suspension continued, and that the Panel could give a clear indication of what it would expect the Registrant to produce were he to seek a return to unrestricted practice.

52. The Panel accepted the legal advice it received with regard to the imposition of a sanction. Accordingly, the Panel accepted that a sanction is not to be imposed to punish the Registrant. Rather, a sanction is only to be imposed to the extent that it is required to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the Paramedic profession and the regulation of it, as well as to declare and uphold proper professional standards. The Panel also acknowledged that the finding that the allegation is well founded does not of itself require the imposition of a sanction. It follows that the first decision to be made is whether, in the particular circumstances of this case, a sanction is required. If it is, the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of seriousness. The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach. The fact that Mr Lee did not argue that a lesser sanction than suspension should be imposed did not remove from the Panel the obligation to follow the process just outlined.

53. The Panel began its deliberations by identifying aggravating and mitigating factors. In the view of the Panel, the following were aggravating factors:

• The Registrant’s actions gave rise to a risk of very serious harm;
• The Registrant’s actions amounted to a breach of trust;
• There was an element of predatory behaviour. The Panel accepts Mr Lee’s submission that the Registrant did not pursue Service User A because she was vulnerable, but it is nevertheless the fact that his actions were directed against a person who was vulnerable, and one he knew to be vulnerable and socially isolated, and in doing so, his actions were sexually focused and persistent;
• While accepting that the Registrant’s behaviour was confined to one individual, it was repeated. There were over 200 messages in a period of over five weeks;
• The Registrant has demonstrated very limited insight and remediation.

54. Against these aggravating factors, the Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to take into account as mitigation the fact that the Registrant had offered an apology for his actions, has fully engaged in the HCPC’s fitness to practice process and made admissions both of the fact of sending the messages and that they were inappropriate (but not that they were sexually motivated).

55. The Panel’s findings had the consequence that this case met a number of the factors identified in the Sanctions Policy as “Serious cases”, specifically:

• Abuse of professional position, as the Registrant sought to pursue an inappropriate relationship with a service user (67 – 69);
• Predatory behaviour (paragraphs 71 & 72);
• Vulnerability (paragraphs 73 -75);
• Sexual misconduct (paragraphs 76 & 77).

56. With these factors in mind, the Panel asked itself whether this is a case in which a sanction is required. The clear answer to that question is that it is, and the reasons why a sanction is required also explain why a caution order would not be appropriate. A sanction is required that will both mark the seriousness of the Panel’s findings and restrict the Registrant’s ability to practise as a Paramedic.

57. The Panel next considered whether a conditions of practice order would be a sufficient response, and in that context it had regard to paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel concluded that, for a number of reasons, a conditions of practice order is not appropriate. The findings of the Panel mean that the case does not meet any of the factors suggested in paragraph 106 as being likely to be present. Further, the Registrant is not presently working in a role in which conditions of practice would have any application, and, although his knowledge of Service User A arose from his employment by EMAS, the matters complained of did not arise in the course of that work and could not have been prevented by the imposition of conditions of practice.

58. Having rejected conditions of practice as an appropriate disposal, the Panel next considered a suspension order, and in that context had regard to paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. That paragraph is in the following terms:

“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.”

59. The first point to be mentioned about this paragraph is that it is clear from the opening sentence of it that it is contemplated that there are some cases in which a striking off order is required even if the factors in bulleted form are present.

60. When the Panel applied the particular circumstances of the case to the bulleted factors suggested in paragraph 121:

• This is indeed a case in which serious breaches of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics have been demonstrated;
• For the reasons already explained, the Registrant has shown very limited insight;
• Again, for the reasons already explained, there remains a significant risk of repetition of behaviour that is serious and inappropriate;
• With regard to the likelihood of the Registrant resolving and remedying his failings, the Panel applied the findings it has already made about the difficulty of that being achieved when the underlying cause is behavioural and attitudinal. It is also relevant to note that the issues are still unresolved and have not been remedied well over three years after the events occurred.

61. For the reasons expressed in the immediately preceding paragraph, the Panel does not find that this is a case which clearly falls within those suggested as being appropriate for a suspension order. The Panel therefore considered a striking off order.

62. Paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy states that a striking off order is a sanction of the last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving a non-exhaustive list of cases that includes abuse of professional position, including vulnerability and sexual misconduct.

63. Paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy is in these terms:

“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;
• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or
• is unwilling to resolve matters.”

64. As previously stated, the Registrant does lack meaningful insight. He did not continue to repeat the misconduct. With regard to matters being resolved, it is a fact that they have not been resolved, and in the judgement of the Panel are unlikely to be resolved in the future.

65. The conclusion reached by the Panel is that a striking off order is required in this case. This is not simply because the circumstances of the case fit the suggested factors in paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy more closely than they do the factors in paragraph 121. In the judgement of the Panel, the Registrant’s behaviour was of a type that was fundamentally incompatible with him remaining on the HCPC Register. Any sanction other than striking off would not reassure the public that the Registrant’s behaviour was viewed as being grossly inappropriate. Furthermore, any sanction other than striking off would not serve to declare and uphold proper professional standards, and for that reason would not send a sufficiently clear message to other registrants.

66. In reaching the conclusion it has, the Panel was acutely conscious of the seriousness of the decision made, particularly having regard to the Registrant’s obvious wish to retain his professional registration, to the career and potential financial consequences of the decision and of the reputational impact of it. However, the factors demanding the making of a striking off order outweigh all of these factors. For that reason, the Panel is satisfied that it is a proportionate response.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Wesley Weathers from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order Application

1. After the Panel announced its decision that the substantive sanction would be that of a striking off order, the Presenting Officer applied for an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. She submitted that the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues resulted in an interim order being necessary for protection of members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. In submitting that the order should be made for the maximum period of 18 months, she argued that if the Registrant did appeal the Panel’s decision, an appeal could take at least that length of time to be finally disposed of.

2. On behalf of the Registrant, Mr Lee stated that he made no submissions on the issue.
Decision

3. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the application and had regard to the section entitled, “Interim Orders” between paragraphs 133 and 135 of the Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Interim Orders”. It accepted that the fact that the Registrant did not resist the application did not remove the necessity for the Panel to reach its own independent decision on the issue. Accordingly, it first decided whether it had jurisdiction to consider the application. If satisfied that it had jurisdiction, the Panel must consider whether there were risks that satisfied one or more of the three grounds that could justify the making of an interim order. They are, (i) that it is necessary for protection of

members of the public, (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest, and (iii) that it is in the interests of the registrant concerned. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that the default position established by the legislation governing this process is that when a substantive sanction is imposed, there will be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain extant. Accordingly, something more than the fact that a substantive sanction has been imposed is required to justify the making of an interim order. If one or more of those grounds is made out, then, notwithstanding the fact that substantive conditions of practice have been rejected as an appropriate sanction, the Panel is required to consider whether interim conditions of practice would sufficiently address the reasons why the ground is established. The Panel confirms that it has followed this approach.

4. Mr Lee accepted that the notice of hearing email sent to the Registrant on 13 September 2024, informed the Registrant of the possibility of an interim order being made. The Panel was satisfied that this communication afforded the Registrant an opportunity of being heard on the matter, and, therefore, it had jurisdiction to consider the matter.

5. Whilst acknowledging the default position that there is no restriction on a registrant’s practice while their appeal rights remain outstanding, the Panel concluded that in the present case, an interim order is required. It is necessary for protection of members of the public and it is otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel in 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, for the same reasons, a substantive conditions of practice order was not appropriate, interim conditions of practice would not provide sufficient protection.

7. The Panel therefore concluded that an interim suspension order should be made.

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

Interim Order

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

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.

History of Hearings for Wesley Weathers