Karl Taber

Background

1. Mr Karl Taber (“the Registrant”) was employed as a Paramedic at East of England Ambulance Service (“EEAST”) until 10 December 2023.

2. In 2017, Colleague B, a Senior Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”), reported an incident concerning the Registrant and explained to her Leading Operations Manager that the Registrant had said to her on an unknown date in 2016, “I really want to touch your arse right now”. Following this incident, Colleague B later attended a mediation meeting with the Registrant and the matter was closed.

3. On or around 11 June 2021, by which time the Registrant was a manager, Colleague A, an EMT, alleged that the Registrant squeezed her breasts whilst they were both in the workplace. Colleague A stated that the Registrant subsequently sent her a WhatsApp message stating that he had later pleasured himself over the encounter, which she deleted immediately.

4. The Registrant was stood down from Paramedic duty on 2 July 2021 and was suspended on 9 July 2021, pending a local level investigation. On 9 July 2021, the HCPC received a self-referral from the Registrant stating that he had been “suspended from work due to ongoing investigation about inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a female member of staff”.

5. Colleague A provided a witness statement to the Police on 2 August 2021 after receiving information from Colleague B that the Registrant also acted inappropriately towards her.

6. The Registrant attended a Police Station for an interview on 4 August 2021. The matter was concluded on 6 August 2021 (the Police would not be taking further criminal action due to a lack of evidence).

7. On 12 October 2021, Colleague B emailed EEAST referring to her 2017 complaint, her experience with the Registrant, and explaining why she had waited until now to raise her complaint.

8. On 5 August 2022, an EEAST disciplinary hearing took place, where it was decided that there would be no further action against the Registrant.

9. On 13 August 2022, the HCPC received an email from Colleague A, in respect of the incident between her and the Registrant, that the Registrant had self-referred.

Preliminary Matters

Application for Special Measures for Colleague A

10. At the outset of the hearing Mr Barnfield, on behalf of the HCPC, requested special measures be put in place for Colleague A. He submitted that, as an alleged victim of a sexual assault, Colleague A was eligible under the HCPC Rules for special measures. He submitted that Colleague A had requested these measures as she was anxious about seeing the Registrant during her evidence. He submitted that the measure of requiring the Registrant to turn his camera off whilst she was giving evidence was proportionate and would cause no injustice and would allow Colleague A to give her best evidence.

11. Mr Olphert, on behalf of the Registrant, did not oppose the special measures proposed.

12. The Panel had regard to the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised the Panel that this was a discretion and the Panel should consider the HCPTS Practice Note. She advised that the Panel Rules provide that the following category of witness, if the quality of their evidence is likely to be adversely affected, may be treated as vulnerable and eligible for special measures:

• “a witness who, in a case involving an allegation of a sexual nature, was the alleged victim”

13. Allegation 2 is undeniably an allegation of a sexual nature and moreover, Colleague A is undisputedly the alleged victim and therefore Colleague A is eligible for special measures under the above rule. In addition, the Panel considered that Colleague A has made it very clear in her correspondence that in order to improve the quality of her evidence she does not wish to see the Registrant. The Panel noted that the Registrant did not oppose the special measures proposed.

14. The Panel considered that the special measure was appropriate and proportionate and would allow Colleague A to give her best evidence. The Panel could identify no unfairness, as the Registrant would still be able to see and hear Colleague A’s evidence. The Panel therefore directed that the Registrant will be required to turn his camera off when Colleague A is giving evidence.

15. On the first day of the hearing, after she had given her evidence-in chief, Colleague A indicated she had become overwhelmed and it would assist her if her adult daughter could accompany her for support whilst giving evidence.

16. This special measure was proposed by Mr Barnfield on the same basis as the earlier application and was not opposed by Mr Olphert on the proviso that the witness was not prompted or assisted to give her evidence.

17. For the same reasons as the earlier application, the Panel determined to allow the special measure requested by Colleague A and allow her daughter to accompany her. This was on the basis that her daughter was on screen and could be seen by the parties at all times. The Panel considered that there was no unfairness in allowing someone to support Colleague A provided that they took no part in the hearing. The Panel could identify no unfairness that arises from this additional measure and the Panel considered it would assist Colleague A to give her best evidence.

Decision on Facts

Admissions

18. At the outset of the hearing the Registrant admitted Particular 1 and partially admitted Particular 4(b) in so far as it related to Particular 1. The remaining particulars were denied.

19. The Panel noted that the Registrant had had the benefit of legal advice and had previously made those admissions at the local investigation. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note “Admissions” and the advice of the Legal Assessor and determined to accept the admissions.

20. The Panel noted that the remaining allegations were denied. In addition, it was submitted that there were some questions for Colleague B regarding the context and circumstances of the admitted facts, and the Panel therefore determined to hear evidence in relation to these matters, as well as the remaining disputed facts, to enable it to reach an informed decision in relation to impairment.

Evidence of Colleague B

21. The Panel heard oral evidence from Colleague B. Colleague B confirmed the contents of her written statement and provided the Panel with some context for the admitted comment as set out in Particular 1. Colleague B told the Panel that she had previously had a good relationship with the Registrant and they had been hugging when the comment was made. Colleague B told the Panel that she felt that this comment had “intention” behind it and it made her feel uncomfortable working in close proximity with the Registrant.

Evidence of Colleague A

22. The Panel heard oral evidence from Colleague A. Colleague A confirmed the contents of her written statement and was asked some additional questions by Mr Barnfield, on behalf of the HCPC, for some further detail about the incidents. Colleague A told the Panel that the Registrant had come up behind her whilst she was working alone at a computer station and grabbed her breasts. Colleague A stated that this made her feel upset and she left the room before the Registrant and left her work in the printer. Colleague A stated that she later received a WhatsApp message from the Registrant about the encounter stating that he had masturbated, but she could not recall the detail of the message. Colleague A told the Panel that she deleted the message as her partner was sat next to her and she did not want him to see it.

Further evidence from Colleague A

23. Following the completion of Mr Barnfield’s questions, there was a break for lunch to allow Colleague A to be provided with a bundle of documents for her to consider before questions from Mr Olphert.

24. During the lunch break, Colleague A emailed the Hearings Officer at 13.24 indicating that she did not feel able to return, stating:

“I’m sorry but I can’t continue with the hearing today.

I’ve found it too stressful and disturbing knowing that even though I can’t see him I know he’s there.

I hope you understand.”

25. The Panel authorised Ms Harris, a paralegal from Capsticks who had been communicating with Colleague A in advance of the hearing, to contact Colleague A to see if she would be willing to return to the hearing or if further special measures would assist.

Colleague A responded via email on 7 April at 16.28 and stated:

“I’m so sorry, I just found it too overwhelming knowing he was there watching.

I know he’s had his camera off which I’m grateful for but my anxiety was peaking. Then we had an hours lunch and I just couldn’t cope.

I dread to think what it’s like for people in an actual court!

I’ve been getting over a chest infection too which hadn’t helped and navigating the evidence was frustrating and I felt like I was holding it all up.

Again I’m really sorry.”

26. Ms Harris followed up this email with a telephone call to see what could assist Colleague A. During the call Colleague A requested further special measures and asked for her adult daughter to be present with her for support whilst she gave her evidence.

27. That special measures application was granted for the reasons as set out above.

28. It was proposed that Colleague A would give evidence on the morning of 8 April. An email was sent to her by Ms Harris at 10.19 explaining that the special measures had been granted and asking her to re-join the link. Colleague A did not join the link and attempts were made to contact Colleague A via telephone to request she re-join the hearing. At 11.38 on 8 April, Ms Harris received an email from Colleague A which stated:

“Apologies I’m unable to speak as I’m waiting in my GP surgery for an appointment (it’s a sit and wait scenario)

I don’t know when I will be out but I really don’t feel well enough. I am sorry.”

29. The Panel considered that further clarification should be sought about whether Colleague A would be well enough to attend the following day.

On 8 April at 11.49, Colleague A sent an email and stated:

“I won’t be available today.

I will let you know asap what the GP outcome is going forward.”

30. The Panel considered that the information from Colleague A was insufficiently clear about her intentions regarding her participation in the hearing and it authorised Ms Harris to ask her a number of questions to ascertain the position.

At 13.42 on 8 April, Ms Harris sent the following questions via email to Colleague A:

“The Panel have asked for the following clarification:

1. Are you prepared to give evidence at all, or are you saying that you are prepared to give evidence at a later stage (tomorrow or a later date)? We need to know the answer to this by 5.30pm today at latest (and in any event, please tell us as soon as possible). Beyond that time, the Panel will have to assume that you are not willing to participate further and the HCPC will proceed with its case on that basis.

2. If you are willing to attend later (tomorrow or at a later date), we need to know whether you will be available to give evidence tomorrow; or, if the GP has signed you as unfit to give evidence/attend court, and if so, for how long). Again, we require that information/evidence by 5.30pm today (and in any event, as soon as possible this afternoon please).

3. We do require a medical note if it is the case that you are signed off as unfit to give evidence/attend court by tomorrow; if this is not available today , we require you to send an email to say why such evidence is not produced by 5.30pm today)

The absence of such information as requested above will mean that the HCPC will have to proceed with its case without further evidence from you.”

31. On 9 April at 10.16, Colleague A sent an email which stated:

“Yes I am too unwell at this time. Please find attached my med3 sick note.”

32. The Panel considered the sick note, which disclosed that Colleague A was suffering from a chest infection and would be unfit for work for seven days until 14 April 2025. The Panel considered that the email of 9 April did not specifically answer the questions asked and did not provide any detail about whether Colleague A would be willing to attend the hearing once she was better. The Panel authorised Ms Harris to ask for further clarity and directed that the following questions were sent to Colleague A:

“Are you willing to attend the current scheduled hearing in principle? (The last day of the current scheduled hearing is Monday 14 April): Yes or No.

2. Are you willing to attend a future hearing in principle? Yes or No.

3. Are you currently fit to attend the current hearing? Yes or No.

4. If Yes, when can you attend? (The last day of the current scheduled hearing is Monday 14 April.)

The Panel require a response to each question by 10am on Thursday 10 April 2025 (and in any event as soon as possible).”

33. The Panel considered that it was in difficulty making any decisions regarding the case without clarity from Colleague A in relation to her intentions to return to the hearing.

34. On 9 April at 18:17, Colleague A sent an email to Ms Harris which stated:

“I am currently unfit to attend.

I cannot say at this time whether I will be fit this week.

I can only hope at this time that I could be well enough to attend on Monday 14th.

I am willing to attend if I am well enough.”

35. The Panel determined to adjourn to the morning of 14 April and requested that Colleague A was invited to join the link at 11am or let the Hearings Officer know by no later than 10am if she was unfit to attend.

36. At 09.58 on 14 April, the Hearings Officer received an email from Colleague A which stated:

“I’m afraid I am still not well enough and am still off work. I’m very sorry that I am unable to attend.”

Application to Adjourn

37. Mr Barnfield, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that at this stage the HCPC’s application was to adjourn to a future date to allow Colleague A to return to give her evidence. Mr Barnfield submitted that given the point in the listing, further applications for hearsay evidence in respect of Colleague A would not be concluded in any event.

38. This application was not opposed by Mr Olphert on behalf of the Registrant. Mr Olphert did, however, submit that the Panel direct that Colleague A disregard the additional bundle she had been provided to consider on Day 1 to minimise any unfairness.

39. In these circumstances, the Panel considered that it would adjourn to a future date to allow Colleague A to recover and return to give evidence. The Panel was mindful of its responsibilities to conduct proceedings fairly and expeditiously but was also mindful of the HCPC’s overarching objective to protect the public. Colleague A’s evidence was, as yet, untested and was the only direct evidence in support of two of the allegations.

40. The Panel considered that it was very important to hear from Colleague A further in order to reach a conclusion on the disputed allegations. The Panel noted that Colleague A appeared to be willing to attend to give evidence but was temporarily unwell and unable to do so.

41. The Panel noted that Colleague A was responding to emails and engaging with emails and calls. In these circumstances it concluded that Colleague A was willing to give evidence and an adjournment was a proportionate course. The Panel considered that any steps to compel Colleague A to attend at this stage would be premature and inappropriate in the light of her current health.

42. In making the decision to adjourn, the Panel took into account that Colleague A was still bound by her Affirmation and it considered that it would be prudent to direct that Colleague A is contacted only by HCPTS staff in relation to the adjourned hearing. The Panel also considered that it was prudent to direct that Colleague A should be informed that she should disregard the additional bundle she was provided to prevent her considering those documents unnecessarily and to preserve the quality of her evidence.

43. The Panel was mindful that Colleague A had been granted special measures and these would apply to any re-convened hearing. The Panel was hopeful that Colleague A, once recovered and with the benefit of these special measures, would be able to return to complete her evidence. However, the Panel noted that Colleague A had expressed some reluctance to return and it would not be desirable for the Panel to be in a similar position at any re-convened hearing.

44. The Panel considered that it would direct that, should Colleague A indicate that she is unwilling to attend the adjourned hearing, the Panel are re-convened to consider either an application for a witness order or a hearsay application if appropriate.

45. The Panel was mindful that there were other witnesses waiting to give evidence but these witnesses’ evidence would be impacted by the evidence of Colleague A and the Panel did not consider it was fair to either party, nor helpful to its decision-making, to continue with the case and hear these witnesses before hearing from Colleague A.

The Panel determined to adjourn the case for a future listing of no less than 5 days. The Panel gave the following directions:

1. The hearing is to be re-listed for a further 5 days.

2. Colleague A is to be contacted by the HCPTS regarding the adjourned hearing.

3. Colleague A is to be advised by the HCPTS to disregard the additional bundle she was provided with and that future bundles will be provided to her in due course.

4. If Colleague A refuses to attend any adjourned hearing, Panel should be reconvened to consider a witness order or hearsay application if appropriate.

Resuming hearing 10 – 12 September 2025

Evidence of Colleague A

46. At the resuming hearing the Panel heard further evidence from Colleague A following questions asked on behalf of the Registrant. Colleague A stated that there had never been any “one on one” flirty banter between her and the Registrant and there had never been any flirtatious exchange of text messages. Colleague A told the Panel that she had the Registrant’s mobile number only for work purposes and there had been no messages exchanged before the incident.

47. Colleague A stated that she thought that the incident occurred close to 3pm as she was finishing her paperwork. Colleague A maintained her account that the Registrant appeared behind her, put his hands on her shoulders, slid them down, and grabbed her breasts. Colleague A stated that she did not tell Colleague C that the Registrant had massaged her shoulders and this did not happen.

48. Colleague A stated that she quickly stood up and challenged the Registrant, who pointed down at his crotch area and made a comment that her breasts felt amazing. Colleague A was unsure who left the room first in her oral evidence, but she told the Panel that she left the room immediately after the incident as she recalled she left her flexible working application in the printer.

49. Colleague A told the Panel that she deleted the text message referred to in Particular 3 because her partner was sat next to her on the sofa and she panicked and did not want him to see it. Colleague A was unable to recollect whether she replied to the message.

50. Colleague A stated that she was initially not planning to report the incident but, following conversations with Colleague C and another colleague, she decided that she would. Colleague A stated that she did not tell Colleague C that she was reluctant to report the matter because of the flirty text messages that had been exchanged. Colleague A stated that this was not the case.

51. Colleague A confirmed that Colleague C suggested she contact a union representative (DT), who would be supportive and assist her to report the incident. Colleague A stated that she was unable to pinpoint the exact date of the incident and confirmed that she had looked at the rotas with DT to modify her initial recollection that it had happened during the week commencing 14 June 2021.

Evidence of Colleague C

52. The Panel heard oral evidence from Colleague C. He confirmed the contents of his written statement. Colleague C stated that when he found out about the incident from Colleague A, he encouraged her to report it. Colleague C stated that Colleague A was initially reluctant to report the matter because there had been flirtatious behaviour by her. Colleague C stated that he understood that Colleague A was ashamed that she may have encouraged the Registrant’s behaviour and was also concerned that her partner would find out and this would cause difficulties at home.

53. Colleague C confirmed that Colleague A had told him that the Registrant had massaged her shoulders before sliding his hands down and grabbing her breasts. Colleague C confirmed that he contacted the union representative (DT) and asked her to contact Colleague A. Colleague C stated that he contacted Colleague A to check that she was okay but there had been no further communication about the incident.

Evidence of TC

54. The Panel heard oral evidence from TC. She told the Panel about the disciplinary process that related to this incident.

Evidence of the Registrant

55. The Panel heard oral evidence from the Registrant. He told the Panel that he admitted the allegations relating to Colleague B and stated that he made a stupid and thoughtless comment, but he denied that this was sexually motivated in relation to Colleague B and he stated he was not sexually attracted to her.

56. The Registrant stated that he was friendly with Colleague A and they had been exchanging flirtatious text messages and other conversations up until around 8-12 months before the incident in June 2021. The Registrant stated that he told Colleague A that this flirtation should stop as both of them had partners and it was not professional.

57. The Registrant stated that as part of this flirtatious relationship there had been an exchange of messages with Colleague A a number of months previously. Colleague A had messaged the Registrant that she had been lying naked on her bed and her boyfriend had not touched her. The Registrant had responded that if that had been him, he “would have been in there like a rat up a drainpipe”. The Registrant accepted that this was a sexual and unprofessional comment but had been part of an exchange that was initiated by Colleague A.

58. The Registrant stated he was taken by surprise when he was told that there had been a safeguarding incident involving a colleague and he was going to be “stood down”. He told the Panel that as he was leaving the building, he walked past Colleague A and he noticed that she did not reach out to him or acknowledge him when he was upset. The Registrant stated that he thought this was unusual and so he messaged Colleague A to ask if he had upset her. The Registrant denied that this was an attempt to persuade Colleague A to withdraw the allegation.

59. The Registrant stated that the incident did not happen and he wasn’t in the room with Colleague A as she stated. The Registrant stated he had provided his telephone and there were no messages to Colleague A following this incident. The Registrant denied that he had sent any explicit messages to Colleague A at this time. The Registrant stated that there was nothing to corroborate that Colleague A was logged on and working on the computers at the time and that he had asked for the records to be obtained.

Submissions on facts and statutory grounds

60. Mr Morrison, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that Colleague A and Colleague B were reliable and credible witnesses and their accounts had been consistent throughout. Mr Morrison stated that the accounts of Colleague A and B were corroborated in the important details by other witnesses and the Panel could prefer their accounts. Mr Morrison submitted that in contrast the Registrant’s account was not plausible, and it was clear from the text messages sent to Colleague A when he was “stood down” from duty that he was aware he had overstepped the boundaries with Colleague A. He submitted that the Registrant could offer no real explanation about why Colleague A would make up this event, and it was more likely to be an escalation of his inappropriate behaviour given the admitted conduct with Colleague B. He invited the Panel to prefer Colleague A’s account of these events and submitted that it was obvious that they were sexually motivated.

61. Mr Morrison referred the Panel to the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and submitted that Standards 1.9, 1.12, 2.8, and 9.1 had been breached. He invited the Panel to have regard to the HCPTS Practice Note relating to “Professional Boundaries” and submitted that the Registrant’s conduct was a serious falling short of the standards required.

62. Mr Lloyd, on behalf of the Registrant, submitted that the Registrant had consistently denied the allegations and that his account was internally consistent. He submitted that in contrast, Colleague A’s account was inconsistent in relation to important details and was not supported by any other evidence. He submitted that there was no evidence of the text messages, there was no evidence she was logged on to the computer at the relevant date, and there was no independent evidence that corroborated she was even in the building at the same time as the Registrant. He submitted that Colleague A’s account was inconsistent with that of Colleague C in respect of whether there had been a flirtatious relationship and a shoulder massage. Mr Lloyd submitted that Colleague A was inconsistent in the various accounts she gave about the time and date of the incident, and she was also inconsistent in relation to the subsequent text message referred to in Particular 3 about when she received it and whether she responded to it. Mr Lloyd submitted that all of the surrounding evidence was inconsistent with Colleague A’s account and it was not safe to rely on her evidence.

63. Mr Lloyd accepted that if the conduct was found proved it would amount to misconduct and would be a serious falling short of the standards required. With regard to the admitted conduct, Mr Lloyd submitted that it was an isolated incident which occurred early in the Registrant’s career and was a thoughtless remark for which he subsequently apologised.

64. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She advised the Panel that the burden of proof remains with the HCPC, and the standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. She advised that this does not vary according to the gravity of the conduct alleged and the facts will be proved if the Panel considers that it was more likely than not that they occurred as alleged. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel should weigh the evidence carefully and not rely solely on the demeanour of any witness. She reminded the Panel that memories can be fallible and that a confident recollection does not necessarily equate to the truth. A confident witness may be mistaken. The Legal Assessor advised that credibility can be divisible and lies of themselves do not necessarily mean that the whole of a witness’s evidence should be discounted. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor in relation to the test for sexual motivation as outlined in the case of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”.

65. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel relating to misconduct and referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”, and in particular advised that the Panel was required to determine whether the facts found proved amounted to the statutory ground and this did not automatically follow from any findings of fact. The Panel was reminded that misconduct must be serious and not every falling short will give rise to a finding of misconduct.

Decision on Facts

66. The Panel took into account all of the evidence it had seen and heard so far. In addition to the agreed bundle of documents provided, it took account of the oral evidence of all of the witnesses. The Panel had regard to the submissions of Mr Morrison and Mr Lloyd and reminded itself that these were not evidence. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor given in open session, and no further advice was given in the course of deliberations. The Panel bore in mind throughout its deliberations the burden and standard of proof.

Particular 2 – Not Proved

2. On a date in June 2021 you:

a. touched Colleague A’s breasts (over clothing);

b. said words to the effect of “they felt amazing” to Colleague A; and/or

c. pointed down towards your trousers area whist talking to Colleague A.

67. The Panel considered these sub-particulars together as part of the sequence of alleged events and the surrounding context. The evidence relating to these sub-particulars was, in the view of the Panel, inextricably linked and came from the same sources. The Panel therefore considered the sub-particulars both individually and collectively. The Panel noted that the case presented by the HCPC was clear that these events happened in quick succession and were part of the same incident.

68. The Panel noted that, perhaps not surprisingly, there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence to assist with these particulars. The Panel noted that there was uncertainty around the date of the incident.

69. The evidence before the Panel was that 11 June 2021 as the date of the incident was arrived at by way of a process of elimination. Colleague A had initially stated in her dignity at work statement, which was submitted on 4 July 2021, that the incident happened at some time in the week commencing 14 June 2021. A later examination of the Registrant’s rota revealed that he was on leave that week and he could not have been in the building with Colleague A during that week. Colleague A then confirmed when she was interviewed on 1 October 2021, as part of the employer’s fact-finding interviews, that the incident had occurred on 11 June 2021. She stated, “Me and my manager think it was on 11 June”.

70. There are no telephone records or messages from the days before or after 11 June 2021, including the explicit message alleged to have been sent by the Registrant after the incident. There is no other independent evidence which corroborates that the Registrant and Colleague A were together in the ambulance station at the approximate time of the incident either on 11 June or the days surrounding 11 June.

71. The Panel considered that it was understandable that Colleague A may not have been able to recollect the exact day of the event and that it was not necessarily material that she was only able to recall that it may have happened during a window of a number of days. With the benefit of the rota and having the opportunity to think about further details which may have come to mind after she gave her initial account, the Panel did not consider that Colleague A’s uncertainty about the exact date assisted it to determine whether the incident happened as alleged.

72. The Panel noted that in her dignity at work statement dated 4 July 2021, Colleague A stated, “I had always considered Karl to be very flirty and admittedly in the past before I was with my current partner I had flirted back”.

73. In her fact-finding interview, Colleague A stated that there had been occasional messages outside work but no sexually explicit messages were exchanged between them, and within these messages “Karl” (the Registrant) was “his flirty self”. There was no acknowledgment that Colleague A had flirted back.

74. In her witness statement to the HCPC, Colleague A stated that during her work with the Registrant “there had never been anything “untoward”” but she was aware that he was “flirty” and “leery”. In her oral evidence to the Panel, Colleague A was very certain that she had never flirted “one on one” with the Registrant and they had never exchanged flirty messages.

75. Colleague C told the Panel that it was his recollection that Colleague A was initially reluctant to report the incident involving the Registrant as she had told him she had previously flirted with the Registrant. Colleague C’s understanding was that Colleague A was concerned that it may be thought she had “encouraged” the behaviour. This was denied by Colleague A, who stated that she had never told Colleague C this.

76. The Registrant told the Panel in his oral evidence that he had a flirtatious relationship with Colleague A which had ended around 8-12 months before the alleged incident. During the Registrant’s fact-finding interview on 21 September 2021, he was asked if he had ever sent a sexual message to Colleague A. The Registrant confirmed that he did send a message during an interaction when Colleague A told him she was naked on her bed and her partner didn’t touch her and he responded, “Crickey, I’d be there like a rat up a drainpipe”. Colleague A stated in her oral evidence that this did not happen and she never received any message of this nature.

77. The Panel considered that the earlier evidence of Colleague A that “she had flirted back” was corroborated by Colleague C and more likely than not to have been the case. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s early admission that he had sent the “rat up a drainpipe” message was also more likely than not to be truthful given that it was a damaging admission made in the context of a disciplinary interview.

78. The Panel considered that it was striking that there was no evidence of any messages between the Registrant and Colleague A prior to the incident. In addition, the Panel did not have any evidence of the message referred to at Particular 3 beyond Colleague A’s recollection of it. There was no evidence from Colleague A’s phone that there was any confirmation hallmark that it had been deleted. The Registrant’s screenshots of his WhatsApp for 10 and 11 June 2021 do not show any messages sent to Colleague A or any notification that any messages have been deleted.

79. The Panel noted Colleague A’s explanation that she had panicked and deleted the message. However, the Panel considered that the absence of any evidence of this message either being sent or deleted was a significant feature. The Panel noted that there were inconsistencies in Colleague A’s account about when she received this message and she was not clear whether it was received on the evening of the incident, the following morning, or the evening after the incident . The Panel was not satisfied that Colleague A’s recollection of the message could be relied upon.

80. Colleague A stated that she had challenged the Registrant when he grabbed her breasts by getting up and saying, “What the hell are you doing”. The Panel considered that in these circumstances, a follow up sexually explicit message confirming the incident happened and outlining further inappropriate behaviour would have been something that it could be expected Colleague A would preserve rather than delete.

81. The Panel also considered the Registrant’s account of events. The Registrant has consistently denied that he was in the computer room alone with Colleague A and that he touched her as alleged on any of the dates around 11 June 2021. The Registrant has stated from the outset that he had a flirty relationship with Colleague A and that this was reciprocated and on occasions instigated by Colleague A.

82. The Panel was therefore in the position of having to decide the issue of whether an event occurred on the basis of two accounts which were markedly different. The Panel bore in mind that this was a very serious allegation which could have significant consequences for the Registrant both personally and professionally if it was found proved. The Panel therefore looked critically at all the evidence before it.

83. There was no other evidence before the Panel that supported Colleague A’s account of events, such as her being logged into a computer, telephone data, text or other messages, or any evidence of her being seen at the ambulance station either immediately before or after the incident.

84. The Panel noted that Colleague A did not report the incident immediately. The Panel acknowledged and accepted that this delay did not mean that her account of events could not be relied upon. However, the passage of time before reporting the complaint has led to uncertainty and confusion about key details in the timeline. The Panel could not be satisfied on the evidence that the details as recalled by Colleague A were accurate and not influenced by other factors such as her conversations with others. Whilst the Panel accepted that there would be inconsistencies in Colleague A’s account, it was striking that in her witness statement and oral evidence to this Panel, Colleague A stated that there had been no flirtation and no exchange of text messages when she had accepted that there was some flirtation in her earlier accounts. The Panel considered that it was likely that this aspect had been played down in Colleague A’s recollection of the events and her view of the Registrant.

85. The Panel also took into account that although there was evidence that the Registrant was “flirty” and had made a sexual comment to both Colleague A and Colleague B, there was no evidence that his conduct had ever escalated beyond a verbal nature. In his evidence before the Panel, the Registrant maintained his account and in the course of his interviews and evidence had made admissions that were damaging. The Panel had no reason to dismiss the Registrant’s account as not credible or inconsistent with any of the other independent evidence. The Panel had no evidence to suggest that the Registrant was not telling the truth.

86. Taking all of the evidence into account, the Panel concluded it was not satisfied to the required standard that the Registrant had touched Colleague A’s breasts, said they felt amazing, and pointed to his crotch area. The Panel considered that this behaviour would have been extreme and is alleged to have happened without any context or any previous physical interaction. The Panel was not persuaded on the evidence before it that this occurred as suggested by Colleague A.

87. The Panel did not consider that the HCPC had discharged the burden of persuading the Panel that it was more likely than not that this incident occurred as alleged. In these circumstances, the Panel found Particular 2 not proved in its entirety.

Particular 3 - Not Proved

3. On a date in June 2021 you sent a message via WhatsApp to Colleague A stating that you had masturbated as a result of the incident in Particular 2, or words to that effect.

88. For the reasons as outlined above, the Panel did not consider that the incident occurred as alleged in Particular 2. It therefore followed that it did not consider the message was sent referring to the incident. The Panel has also outlined in its reasons above, at paragraphs 76-80, its conclusions with regard to the WhatsApp message.

Particular 4

Your conduct in Particulars 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 was:

a. sexually motivated; and/or

b. sexual in nature.

89. In light of the findings in relation to Particulars 2 and 3 and the admission in relation to Particular 1 being sexual in nature, the Panel was only required to determine whether the Registrant’s admitted conduct at Particular 1 was sexually motivated.

90. The Panel noted that the Registrant denied being sexually attracted to Colleague B and stated that his comment was stupid. The Panel noted that Colleague B’s evidence was that there was “intention” behind the comment.

91. The Panel was satisfied that there could be no other explanation for the comment other than an intention to obtain sexual gratification. The comment was inherently sexual in nature and was a reference to wanting to touch an intimate part of Colleague B whilst they were in an embrace. The Panel could only conclude that this was for a sexual purpose and was therefore sexually motivated.

Decision on Grounds

92. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts admitted and those found proved amounted to misconduct. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions in respect of the facts found proved were both inappropriate and unprofessional, and fall seriously short of what would be proper in the circumstances.

93. Colleague B described how the Registrant’s comment “was made in such a way that made me feel like there was intention behind it and I was quite taken back by it. It started to make me think twice, I did not necessarily want to be sat in a vehicle with him if he had such intentions. You want to be able to trust your colleagues working in an ambulance in a vulnerable situation in tight proximity”.

94. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions caused significant emotional harm to Colleague B and had an effect on Colleague C as Colleague B’s husband. The Panel found that as consequence of the Registrant’s actions, he will have compromised his colleagues’ ability to focus on their work and that this will have created a risk of harm to patients in their care.

95. The Registrant’s actions were sexually motivated and an attempt to pursue a sexual relationship with Colleague B. His comment violated her dignity and took place in the workplace, where she ought to have felt safe to do her job.

96. The Panel found that the Registrant was also in breach of standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

9.1 “You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.”

97. The Panel considered that this conduct, even though isolated, would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners and amounted to serious misconduct.

Resuming hearing 02 December 2025

Submissions on impairment

98. Mr Morrison, for the HCPC, submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practice was impaired, particularly on public interest grounds. Mr Morrison submitted that whilst the misconduct found proved was an isolated comment made in 2016, this had significant consequences for Colleague B and the Panel had determined that the conduct had the potential to cause harm to patients by causing distress and distraction to a colleague at the workplace.

99. Mr Morrison submitted that the need to uphold proper professional standards would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in this case given the serious nature of the facts found proved, which involved a sexually motivated comment and a significant falling short of the standards of professional behaviour. He submitted that in these circumstances, a finding of impairment was required to uphold proper professional standards and public confidence in the profession.

100. Mr Lloyd, on behalf of the Registrant, submitted in summary that the Registrant had taken significant steps to remedy his failings. Mr Lloyd invited the Panel to take account of the long period of time that had passed since this isolated comment. He submitted that the Registrant had demonstrated consistent insight. He admitted and acknowledged the comment was wrong at the local level and maintained that admission during these proceedings. Mr Lloyd submitted that the Registrant had taken responsibility for his conduct, apologised, and participated in mediation with Colleague B. He had returned to work after this event and there had been no repeat of the conduct.

101. Mr Lloyd drew the Panel’s attention to the positive testimonials from colleagues who spoke highly of the Registrant’s professionalism and conduct. He submitted that there had been no repetition of any concerns since these incidents and there was evidence that the Registrant had taken effective steps to prevent any repetition. He submitted that there was no risk of repetition and a finding of impairment on the personal component was not required.

102. Mr Lloyd submitted that there was no necessity for a finding of impairment on the public component. He invited the Panel to consider that the Registrant had until very recently been subject to an interim order, firstly of conditions and latterly a suspension. He submitted that a fully informed member of the public would be aware that the context of this finding of misconduct involved an isolated comment made in 2016, when the Registrant was very early in his career. Mr Lloyd submitted that this was a truly historic concern which had been remedied. Mr Lloyd submitted that the public interest element had been addressed with the Panel’s finding of a breach of the standards amounting to serious misconduct and the lengthy regulatory proceedings that have examined the Registrant’s conduct.

Decision on Impairment

103. The Panel went on to consider the issue of impairment by reason of the Registrant’s misconduct. It had careful regard to all the evidence before it and to the submissions of Mr Morrison for the HCPC and those made by Mr Lloyd on behalf of the Registrant. The Panel reminded itself of the bundle prepared for this stage, which consisted of the Registrant’s reflective statement together with a bundle of testimonials, and it reminded itself of the oral evidence given at the facts stage which was relevant to the question of current impairment.

104. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had particular regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”.

105. The Panel first considered past impairment. It noted its findings that the Registrant had on one occasion made a sexual and sexually motivated remark to Colleague B whilst they were working together. The Panel accepted Colleague B’s evidence that this remark made her wary of the Registrant’s motives and she was unwilling to work in close proximity to him in the ambulance. The Panel noted the very serious finding that this conduct was sexually motivated, which was not admitted by the Registrant. The Panel had also found that the Registrant’s misconduct had breached key standards of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics as set out above, and had undermined public confidence in the profession.

106. The Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of that misconduct. In addressing the personal component of impairment, the Panel asked itself whether the Registrant is liable, now and in the future, to repeat misconduct of the kind found proved. In reaching its decision, the Panel had particular regard to the issues of insight and remediation.

107. The Panel noted that in the case of CHRE v NMC & Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin), Mrs Justice Cox stated, “When considering whether or not fitness to practise is currently impaired, the level of insight shown by the practitioner is central to a proper determination of that issue”.

108. The Registrant had submitted documents including a comprehensive reflection and positive relevant references. The Registrant had expressed within the documents, and in his evidence, a genuine apology and had explained that he takes responsibility for his actions and feels shame and remorse at the impact his actions had on Colleague B.

109. The Panel had careful regard to Silber J’s guidance in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin) that panels should take account of:

• Whether the conduct which led to the charge is easily remediable;

• Whether it has been remedied; and

• Whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.

110. The Panel considered and accepted the evidence that this misconduct involved one isolated remark to a colleague in 2016. The Panel reminded itself that these were very serious breaches of the Standards and had distressing and upsetting consequences for Colleague B and it was instrumental in her decision to leave the profession.

111. The Panel also took into account its findings regarding Colleague A. Although the allegations of inappropriate sexual touching were not found proved, the Registrant in his evidence stated that they had a flirty relationship at work which he ended as he considered it was unprofessional. Further, the Registrant admitted exchanging messages of a sexual nature with Colleague A, although this was denied by Colleague A and no messages were produced. The Panel considered that although this was not professional misconduct, the Panel was unable to be satisfied that this behaviour was out of character for the Registrant and was a momentary lapse.

112. The Panel noted that attitudinal concerns were more difficult to address but concluded that with the development of meaningful insight, the Registrant’s misconduct is remediable.

113. The Panel noted that, over the years that had passed, the Registrant had not blamed others and, indeed, had made unequivocal and damaging admissions in these proceedings to acting in an unprofessional way with Colleague A in order to demonstrate that he was aware of his conduct and took responsibility. The Panel noted the Registrant’s assurances that he has learned extensively from this experience and it took account of his detailed reflection as to the reasons why it arose. The Panel considered that the Registrant had taken steps to understand why he had acted in this way. The Panel noted that the Registrant recognised that he had overstepped boundaries with Colleague B and was genuinely upset at the effect it had upon her and their friendship.

114. The Panel also noted that the Registrant continued to work within the ambulance service after the incident with Colleague B and was promoted to a manager. The Panel noted that the Registrant has been the subject of restricted practice and that the testimonials do not raise any concern about the Registrant’s work. The Panel also noted that these testimonials did not give any indication that the authors were aware of the allegations and so it was not able to attach significant weight to them.

115. The Panel considered that in his evidence and his reflections, the Registrant had fully developed his insight into the nature and gravity of his conduct. The Panel noted that the Registrant had recognised that his conduct was wrong and taken responsibility for the harm he had caused. The Panel considered that through training, reflection, and application, he was unlikely to repeat the misconduct. The Registrant explained that he no longer discussed his private life at work and keeps all conversations on a professional level to avoid future blurring of boundaries.

116. The Panel noted that the Registrant indicated in his reflection that he had undertaken targeted training, but the Panel had not seen any evidence of this. However, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s reflection, together with a period of working without any concerns, suggested that he had embedded this learning into his practice.

117. In light of its findings in relation to insight and remediation, the Panel considered that there was a very low risk that the Registrant would repeat matters of the kind found proved. For these reasons, the Panel determined that a finding of impairment is not required on public protection grounds.

118. The Panel then went on to consider whether a finding of impairment is necessary on public interest grounds. In addressing this component of impairment, the Panel had careful regard to the critically important public issues identified by Silber J in the case of Cohen when he said:

“Any approach to the issue of whether .... fitness to practise should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of…the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

119. The Panel considered that there had been a very serious falling short by the Registrant which had crossed professional boundaries and caused harm to a colleague and risk of harm to patient care, given Colleague B’s reluctance to continue working with the Registrant after this event. The Panel considered that the conduct would have made colleagues feel uncomfortable and risked distracting them from their job of caring for patients.

120. The public rightly expects professionals to act appropriately with their colleagues at the workplace and making sexual comments with the intent of pursuing a relationship risks distracting individuals from providing effective patient care. The Panel considered that the public would be very concerned to learn of the Registrant’s conduct. Despite the steps taken by the Registrant since these events, the Panel was of the view that public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be undermined if no finding of impairment was made in these circumstances. The Panel considered that the need to maintain confidence in the profession and uphold professional standards would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances. The Panel did not consider that a finding of misconduct was sufficient to mark the seriousness of this matter. Therefore, the Panel concluded that it was in the public interest to make a finding of impaired fitness to practise.

121. For all the reasons set out above, the Panel determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired in relation to the public component.

Decision on Sanction

122. Mr Morrison submitted that the Panel should consider the factors in the HCPC Sanctions Policy, applying them to the facts found proved. He submitted that sanction was a matter for the Panel and he was not instructed to advocate for any particular sanction but rather to highlight key features. He suggested that the Panel should identify any aggravating and mitigating features. He submitted that an aggravating feature was the effect of the conduct on Colleague B and in particular he reminded the Panel of her evidence that her departure from the ambulance service was linked in part to this incident.

123. Mr Lloyd submitted that any sanction must be just and proportionate. It must also be fair, not punitive, and the minimum sanction required to address the findings made by the Panel. He submitted that the Panel should carefully consider, given the exceptional delay since the incident which has led to this hearing, whether a sanction was required at all to address the public interest. He submitted that the public interest had been met by the scrutiny of the Registrant’s conduct by the Regulator and the length of time these proceedings had been ongoing. Mr Lloyd reminded the Panel that the Registrant had been subject to restrictions on his practice for three years and most recently had been the subject of an Interim Suspension Order.

124. Mr Lloyd submitted that there were significant mitigating features, which included his admissions to the conduct at the local level and his continued engagement and participation in these proceedings. Mr Lloyd submitted that there was evidence of the Registrant’s good character contained within the testimonials and it was clear that there had been no repetition of any misconduct since 2016. He submitted that the facts giving rise to his misconduct were unlikely to recur. In particular, the salutary effect of these protracted proceedings, the lack of further complaints, and his remediation would prevent any repetition. Mr Lloyd submitted that the Registrant had taken responsibility for his failings and taken steps to address them.

125. Mr Lloyd reminded the Panel that the Panel found current impairment on the public component only. The extent of the misconduct was limited to one comment when the Registrant was early in his career and was a single, historic error of judgement. The low risk of repetition and the character references showed a lower level of sanction, if any, was applicable.

126. Mr Lloyd submitted that if the Panel was of the view that a sanction was necessary, the evidence of the Registrant’s genuine insight and reflection would justify a Caution Order in this case. Mr Lloyd submitted that the features of this case aligned with the guidance contained in the Sanctions Policy which would indicate a Caution Order is appropriate.

127. The Panel considered the submissions and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

128. The Legal Assessor advised the Panel to have regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy, which states that sanctions should only be imposed in relation to the facts found proved but should address all of those facts which have led to a finding of impairment. The primary function of any sanction is to protect the public. The considerations in this regard include: any risks the registrant might pose to those who use or need their services; the deterrent effect on other registrants; public confidence in the profession concerned; and public confidence in the regulatory process. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that all sanctions are available in this case and the Panel should work through the sanctions available starting with the least restrictive.

129. Sanctions are not intended to punish registrants but instead ensure the public is protected. Inevitably a sanction may be punitive in effect but should not be imposed simply for that purpose. Any sanction must be proportionate and should be no more than is necessary to meet the legitimate purposes of providing adequate protection to the public, to protect the reputation of the profession, maintain confidence in the regulatory system, and declare and uphold proper professional standards.

130. The Panel identified the following aggravating factors:

• The impact of the Registrant’s misconduct on Colleague B, who was distressed and ultimately left the ambulance service.

131. The Panel identified the following mitigating factors:

• This was a historic isolated incident which took place in 2016 when the Registrant was early in his career.

• The comment was immediately admitted by the Registrant and addressed by mediation with Colleague B at the time.

• The Registrant immediately apologised for his comment.

• The Registrant had undertaken extensive remediation and had demonstrated insight into the impact of his conduct on Colleague B and others.

• The Registrant has engaged in the regulatory process, which has been protracted, and complied with interim restrictions.

132. Taking no further action or mediation was not appropriate, as the Panel considered that a sanction was appropriate and was necessary to recognise the impact of the Registrant’s misconduct on the reputation of the profession. The Panel considered that although the proceedings had been ongoing for some time and the Registrant had been subject to interim restrictions, this was not an exceptional feature which would justify taking no action.

133. The Panel next considered a Caution Order. The HCPC Sanctions Policy states:

“101. A caution order is likely to be an appropriate sanction for cases in which:

• the issue is isolated, limited, or relatively minor in nature;

• there is a low risk of repetition;

• the registrant has shown good insight; and

• the registrant has undertaken appropriate remediation.

102. A caution order should be considered in cases where the nature of the allegations mean that meaningful practice restrictions cannot be imposed, but a suspension of practice order would be disproportionate. In these cases, panels should provide a clear explanation of why it has chosen a non-restrictive sanction, even though the panel may have found there to be a risk of repetition (albeit low).”

134. The Panel considered that taking all of the factors of this case into account, a Caution Order is sufficient to mark the significance of the Panel’s findings. The Panel considered that although serious, the Registrant’s misconduct was at the lower end of the scale of sexually motivated conduct. It involved one isolated remark and there was no accompanying unwanted physical contact. The Registrant apologised and took steps to address the matter in mediation with Colleague B. The Panel had already determined that, given the Registrant’s insight and remediation, there is a very low risk of repetition and there has been no repetition in the intervening years.

135. The Panel considered that the nature of the allegations and the fact that the Registrant is not currently working as a Paramedic mean that conditions of practice are not likely to be appropriate or workable. The facts arise from a historic event which was addressed at the time on a local level.

136. The Panel considered that a one-year Caution Order would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to mark the seriousness of the misconduct. The Panel considered that in light of the mitigation and the period of time that the Registrant has been subject to restrictions, a longer Caution Order would not be proportionate. The Panel considered that a one-year Caution Order would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

137. Having determined that a Caution Order appeared to meet all the legitimate requirements of a sanction in this case and that it was proportionate in all the circumstances, the Panel then considered whether the case would more properly merit conditions of practice or a Suspension Order under the Sanctions Policy.

138. In the judgement of the Panel, conditions of practice are not practicable and a Suspension Order would be disproportionate in view of the Registrant’s insight as to the seriousness of his misconduct and would be unduly punitive. The Registrant’s misconduct was not sufficiently serious, persistent, or reckless to justify conditions of practice or a Suspension Order on the grounds of public protection and the wider public interest. The Panel considered that the Registrant has demonstrated full insight and taken responsibility for what he has done and the effect of his misconduct. These failings have now been remedied and the Registrant is not impaired under the personal component.

139. The Panel therefore concluded that a Caution Order for one year is the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

That the Registrar is directed to annotate the register entry of Mr Karl Taber with a Caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of 1 year from the date this order comes into effect.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Karl Taber

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
02/12/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Caution
10/09/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Hearing is ongoing
07/04/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard