Mr David B Glenton
Please note that the decision can take up to 5 working days to be uploaded onto the HCPTS website. Please contact one of our Hearings Team Managers via email@example.com or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Between June 2017 and July 2017, whilst registered as a paramedic and employed by East of England Ambulance Service:
1. On one or more occasion(s) you touched Person A’s breast(s).
2. On one or more approximately two occasions you touched Person A’s bottom.
3. On one occasion you touched Person A’s thigh(s).
4. On one occasion you wrapped your arms around Person A’s body and held her hands.
5. You made the following inappropriate comments to Person A:
6. ‘Today we will have to make you cry ****’ or words to that effect;
7. ‘She is my nemesis and she is struggling now’ or words to that effect; and/or
8. ‘If you’re good you can have a day off’ or words to that effect.
9. You allowed Person A to administer morphine to a patient when she was not authorised to do so.
10. Your actions as described at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 were sexually motivated.
11. The matters set out at paragraphs 1 – 5 and 7 amount to misconduct.
12. The matter set out at paragraph 6 amounts to misconduct and/or lack of competence.
13. By reason of your misconduct and/or lack of competence your fitness to practise is impaired.
Application to Amend the Allegation
1. The Presenting Officer, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for amendments to be made to the Allegation to properly reflect the HCPC’s evidence and to clarify the allegation. The HCPC submitted that the proposed amendments were minor in nature and did not affect the substance of the allegation. Notice of the proposed amendments had been sent to the Registrant on 6 June 2019.
2. The Registrant was present at the hearing and was represented. The Registrant, via his Representative, did not object to the proposed amendments.
3. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that it should have regard to the merits of the case, the fairness of proceedings and consider whether the requested amendments could be made without injustice. The Panel should consider the wider public interest in ensuring that allegations accurately reflect the evidence that has been adduced. It was up to the Panel whether to accept all, none, or some of the amendments proposed by the HCPC.
4. In the Panel’s judgment, the proposed amendments were fair, did not change the substance of the Allegation, served to clarify it and would not cause injustice. Accordingly, the Panel acceded to the Presenting Officer’s application and allowed the amendments to be made. The amended Allegation is as set out above.
Hearing in private
5. Matters relating to the health of the Registrant and the health of Person A would be referred to in the hearing. Rule 10 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules enabled whole or part of the hearing to be held in private for the protection of the private life of the Registrant or witnesses. The Panel agreed that any references to the health of the Registrant or to the health of Person A should be heard in private.
6. The Panel received a bundle of documents from the HCPC, comprising a case summary, witness statements and exhibits.
7. The Registrant submitted a bundle of documents which included a number of witness statements and character references, a written reflective piece, photographs of the inside of an ambulance and Occupational Health reports.
8. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant admitted factual particulars 5(b) and 5(c); he denied the other particulars of the Allegation.
9. When the matters which are the subject of the Allegation came to light, the Registrant was employed as a Band 6 Senior Paramedic by East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (the Trust), where he had worked since January 2009. As part of his role, the Registrant was responsible for mentoring student paramedics.
10. The Registrant was one of the mentors responsible for mentoring a student Paramedic, Person A, during her placement. It is agreed between the parties that Person A worked alongside the Registrant on 7 shifts in total; a 2-day ‘ride-out’ in the ambulance on 14 and 15 December 2016 and 5 further shifts in Person A’s final term of her placement, on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 July 2017.
11. On 14 September 2017, Person A raised concerns with her university Course Director regarding the Registrant’s alleged inappropriate conduct towards her. Person A’s Course Director brought Person A’s complaint to the attention of the Trust and an internal investigation was conducted at the Trust by Witness JN, Community Response Manager. The Registrant was suspended from duty pending the outcome of the investigation and made a self-referral to the HCPC on 15 September 2017.
12. On 21 September 2017, Person A reported this matter to the police and provided them with a witness statement. The police subsequently interviewed the Registrant on a voluntary basis and, on 2 December 2017, confirmed to the HCPC that they would be taking no further action against the Registrant. The HCPC continued its investigation into the matters.
Decision on the Facts
13. Person A, the complainant, explained to the HCPC that she felt vulnerable meeting with the Registrant during the hearing. Accordingly, she participated in the hearing by video-link. The Panel did not draw any adverse inference against the Registrant from these special measures. She confirmed the content of her witness statement as representing a true account. The Panel also had before it Person A’s police statement and her university ‘Raising and Escalating Concerns form’. Person A said that she did not recall on which shifts in July 2017 the incidents occurred, or in what order, but that “they happened throughout the shifts” on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 July 2017.
14. Person A said that she had felt uneasy around the Registrant since her first “ride-out” shift alongside him and that it was when she first met him that he mentioned a previous student of his and referred to her as his “nemesis”. Person A said that this terminology and the Registrant’s conduct made her feel intimidated and scared. She said that there were periods when she was alone with the Registrant and that he behaved differently then from when they were among other people. She said that there was no falling out between them and that she did not, on any occasion, raise her concerns with the Registrant as he had power over her, she was scared of him and was conscious that to complete her placement, she had to try to do her best and learn from him as a paramedic.
15. When asked why she did not report her concerns until the beginning of her second year, Person A told the Panel that she finished her first academic year a week after her last shift with the Registrant in July 2017. She had considered raising concerns before but wanted to move on. Person A said that, initially, she thought that this was what ambulance culture was like, that she would just have to get used to it and that it wasn’t until she talked to friends about her concerns that she realised “this wasn’t normal.” When she was informed that the Registrant would also be her friend’s educator, Person A raised her concerns as she said that she did not want her friend to have the same experience.
16. In terms of the effect of the Registrant’s conduct on her, Person A explained that she struggled to be in the back of an ambulance after her experience with him as she associated it as a negative place. She said that although that all she had wanted was to be a paramedic and was on track to graduate, she left her course in her third year. She has health issues which she explained resulted from her feelings of intimidation as a result of the Registrant’s conduct.
17. Witness JN, a registered Paramedic, investigated the allegations at the Trust. He attended the hearing and confirmed the content of his witness statement as representing a true account. He confirmed that he did not know the Registrant when he conducted the investigation. JN felt that the Registrant was open and honest with him during the investigation interview on 25 October 2017, when the Registrant denied the allegations investigated by the Trust of sexually assaulting Person A. JN said that he checked the rostering system, identified 3 people whom the Registrant had worked with at the same time that he had worked with Person A, and conducted telephone interviews with those members of staff (Witnesses JJ, LR and JH). JN said that they were all supportive of the Registrant and JN confirmed that he accepted their accounts. JN said that he did not speak to Person A and acknowledged that, with hindsight, he should have interviewed her or “gone back and asked for more detail.” In answer to a question from the Panel, JN considered that organisational culture might have been a factor that required investigation as it was relevant to these allegations.
18. JN also accepted that, with hindsight, he should have obtained relevant documentation and sought to interview other potential witnesses. Specifically, when asked about the allegation concerning the opening of the medicine vial, JN said that he did not seek out the relevant Patient Care Record (PCR), try to identify the patient involved or Person A’s Practice Assessment Document (PAD) as it did not occur to him to do so.
19. He explained that this was his first investigation that he had carried out concerning conduct and that he had received no formal training as an investigator. The Panel also noted that he had not identified and/or interviewed LR as a potentially important witness despite her working alongside Person A and the Registrant during one of the five shifts in July.
20. In answer to a question from the Panel, JN said that he was not asked to investigate the alleged incident of Person A administering Morphine to a patient and, in fact, was not aware of that alleged incident.
The Registrant’s evidence
21. The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel, was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer and answered questions from the Panel. He confirmed the content of his witness statement as representing a true account. He told the Panel that he initially trained as an Ambulance Technician, became a Paramedic in 1999 and has mentored between 50-60 Paramedic students, both male and female. He accepted that he can make ill-judged comments that are meant as jokes and that he has a ‘schoolboy’ sense of humour.
22. The Registrant strongly denied all of the allegations save for 5(b) and 5(c).
23. The Registrant said that he was Person A’s associate mentor in December 2016. He met Person A for the first time on 14 December 2016 and that he had not been aware that Person A would be doing a “ride-out” with him. Due to Person A being unwell in the ambulance, the Registrant said that he transferred to another vehicle, worked with another crew for that shift and only saw Person A at the end of the shift. The Registrant said that the second “ride-out” shift on 15 December 2106 was ‘insignificant’ and that Person A sat in the back of the ambulance with him when he was attending to patients.
24. By July 2017, the Registrant had become Person A’s primary mentor. The Registrant said that he did not speak to Person A about a ‘nemesis’ until 2 July 2017. The Registrant said that it was then that he discussed with Person A the objectives of her Practice Assessment Document and this discussion was in the presence of Witness JJ. Due to an issue with his previous student in 2016, the Registrant told the Panel that he was clear with Person A that, should she have any problems during her placement, she could raise them with either himself, JJ or others.
25. The Registrant told the Panel that he had received a complaint from the student he mentored in 2016 (whom he called Person B for the purposes of this hearing) and whom he had referred to as his ‘nemesis’ to Person A. The Registrant accepted that he called Person B his nemesis and said that this was because she did not comply with what she should be doing and because he did not wish to refer to her by name for confidentiality reasons. He said that he never saw the complaint lodged by Person B but that some of the complaint was in relation to his ‘black humour’; he said that the student had said that there was a sexual connotation, which he denied absolutely. The Registrant said that he was called to an informal meeting by the Trust, was not represented, and accepted a 6-month verbal warning and submitted a ‘memo of apology’ and a reflected on his use of black humour using the Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle.
26. The Registrant said that on each of the five shifts in July 2017, a third crew member was present. He said that he was never on his own with Person A; that either another crew member or a patient was present. He said that Person A participated well and was “smiley and cheerful” throughout her shifts with him. He thought that he was relaxed, humorous and open with her. He said that there were no disagreements between them and that he had no suspicions that there was anything wrong. The Registrant accepted that he was in a position of power. He said that Person A was signed off as having completed the placement in July 2017 and that he informed her of this.
27. The Registrant informed the Panel that he has reflected on his practice and continues to do so. He accepted that the reflection he completed in relation to Person B was not sufficient as he was still using black humour as a coping mechanism and using “incorrect terms” when acting as Person A’s mentor.
28. PL, a registered Senior Paramedic, attended the hearing as a character witness for the Registrant. He confirmed the content of his witness statement as representing a true account. He was initially appointed and continues to be the Registrant’s Welfare Officer and told the Panel of the significant impact that Person A’s complaint and the subsequent Trust and HCPC proceedings have had on the Registrant. He said that he believes the Registrant to be an honest individual and that he did not believe that the Registrant had committed the alleged conduct. He told the Panel that “dark banter” is a way of dealing with the job, that students don’t understand it, but that if he had been aware of any malicious comments or anything inappropriate, he would have dealt with the matter and thought that other people would speak up.
29. JH, a registered Paramedic, attended the hearing by telephone as a factual witness. He confirmed the content of his witness statement as representing a true account. JH worked on the shift of 5 July 2017 with the Registrant and Person A and described it as a typical shift. Both he and Person A were student Paramedics in July 2017, but he was an ‘in-house’ student at the Trust. JH said he had only worked on shift with the Registrant once or twice in total, that he met Person A for the first time on 5 July 2017 and had not seen her since. He said that he did not witness any bullying, intimidating or inappropriate behaviour by the Registrant, either in the ambulance or in the crew room, or any change in Person A’s demeanour during the shift. He said that Person A did not appear to him to be scared during this shift. JH told the Panel that he was with both the Registrant and Person A for the “significant majority” of the shift. The only time that he was not with them was when he was driving the ambulance and he said that he could see into the back of the ambulance, through the connecting window, via the rear-view mirror. He said that he would have had a clear view of the two seats opposite the bed which, he said, is where most clinicians sit but accepted that he would not have had “constant” sight into the back. JH told the Panel that if the Registrant was driving the ambulance, Person A would have been with him, JN, in the back of the ambulance. JN could not remember whether any drugs were administered on the shift of 5 July 2019.
30. JJ, an Emergency Care Assistant at the time of the matters pertaining to the Allegation, attended the hearing as a factual witness. She confirmed the content of her witness statement as representing a true account. JJ was the Registrant’s permanent crew mate and performed half of her shifts with him over approximately 4 years. JJ was on shift with the Registrant and Person A on both of the ride-outs on 14 and 15 December 2016 and on the shifts of 2, 4 and 10 July 2017.
31. JJ said that she and the Registrant had a close working relationship and that the Registrant’s was a supportive colleague. She referred to his “bizarre” sense of humour but stated that he had never behaved inappropriately in front of her at work. JJ remembered the Registrant having a conversation with Person A on 2 July 2017 about what was expected of her during the placement and that this conversation took place in the back of the ambulance while they were eating breakfast and chatting. JJ remembered the Registrant using the word “nemesis” with reference to his previous mentee but, in her opinion, it was not said in an intimidating or coercive way. JJ agreed that there was a level of what was described as “banter” in the crew room but did not think it was anything different from what students are used to. She said that she did not hear any untoward “banter” directed to Person A.
32. JJ said that she did not notice any change in Person A’s demeanour in the 3 12-hour shifts in July 2017. She explained that due to her role with the Air Training Corps she had undertaken training courses on sexual abuse and assaults. Moreover, she stated that she “a history of being able to read body language” due to a previous role in “close protection”. As a consequence she was confident that she would have recognised any change in Person A, such as her withdrawing. JJ told the Panel that Person A would choose to sit in the front of the ambulance with the Registrant when he was driving, rather than sit with the patient. JJ said that when the Registrant was travelling in the back of the ambulance, he would sit on the jump-seat and that this would allow the student paramedic to interact with the patient. She said that Person A would sit in the side seat nearest to the cab, away from the exit doors. JJ did not remember any drugs being administered, any patients being cannulated or any glass vials being opened on any of the shifts of 2, 4 or 10 July 2017.
33. JJ was asked about the notes of her telephone interview with the Trust’s investigator, JN, on 12 December 2017 in which she is said to have stated, “I was completely shocked when I heard this allegation had come in; I may have expected it from previous students but not from [Person A].” JJ told the Panel that she wanted to clarify that she had meant that she would have expected the Registrant’s previous student [Person B] to have made a complaint, but not about anything sexual. She said that the word “students” should have been in the singular, to refer to Person B and had emailed the Trust’s investigator to request that this was amended. She was invited by the Panel to read a copy of an email she had sent to the Trust’s investigator confirming her acceptance of what she had said which included the accuracy of this comment. She maintained that she had raised it with him. JJ confirmed that the Registrant had only mentored 2 student Paramedics, Person B and Person A, in the time that she worked with him.
34. LR, a Trust Student Paramedic at the time of the Allegation, attended the hearing as a factual witness. She confirmed the content of her witness statement as representing a true account. LR was on shift with the Registrant and Person A on 3 July 2017. She said that she had worked several shifts with the Registrant. LR stated that she had never seen the Registrant behave in the way alleged in the Allegation.
35. LR addressed the Panel in detail in relation to the shift of 3 July 2017 and the patient they attended to at the train station. When asked who administered the Morphine to the patient, LR said, “[the Registrant], absolutely unequivocally.” She said that the patient quickly became nauseous so the Registrant decided that Ondansetron should be administered to counteract the sickness. LR stated that the Registrant squirted the residue of the Morphine into the sharps bin and that she was surprised by this because people normally dispense of it outside the door of the ambulance. LR stated that she was in the back of the ambulance when the Ondansetron was drawn up and that she believed she was in the front of the ambulance when it was administered.
36. The Registrant’s Representative asked LR about there being a discrepancy between what she had said at this hearing - her unequivocal statement that the Registrant had given the Morphine - and her position as set out in her email of February 2018 to NC. LR had received an email from NC, Senior Locality Manager, informing her that there was an allegation that Person A was tasked by the Registrant to administer Morphine but that LR was not present to have seen this. LR responded by email that she “would not be 100% definite that I saw it being given, but definitely saw [the Registrant] cannulating and drawing up the drug.” By way of explanation for this change in stance, LR said that she received the email and “didn’t think much about it.” She said the reason she said that she could not be 100% definite was that she “didn’t give it careful thought” before responding. When questioned by the Presenting Officer and the Panel, the account provided by LR became more imprecise and conflicted. LR had confirmed to the hearing that she saw the Registrant administer the Morphine but later stated that she had not seen Person A administer it and thus could only assume that the Registrant had. She also stated that if she had seen him ask Person A to do it, she would have said as a joke, “Hang on, why can’t I do it?”.
37. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and applied the relevant principles. She advised the Panel on the approach to facts and that the applicable civil burden of proof, the “balance of probabilities”, rested on the HCPC. The Registrant need prove nothing. She reminded the Panel of the Registrant’s previous good character and that such evidence was relevant in the assessment of the evidence.
38. In deciding whether the misconduct alleged was sexually motivated, the Panel had regard to the definition of ‘sexual’ in Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, namely that touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that:
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.
39. On the issue of sexual motivation, the Legal Assessor referred the Panel to the case of Arunkalaivanan v GMC  EWHC 873 (Admin). This case provides helpful guidance on the approach the Panel ought to take to the assessment of the evidence. The Panel must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that sexual motivation can properly be inferred from all the circumstances if there is no direct evidence of motive. The Panel was reminded that character evidence was a part of that assessment.
40. The Panel carefully considered all the documentary and oral evidence and the submissions of both parties. It gave careful consideration to the context in which these allegations arose. The Panel assessed the evidence of each witness and the reliability of their testimony.
41. The Panel found Person A clear, measured and thoughtful in her evidence. She accepted where she did not clearly recall. Her oral evidence at the hearing was, for the most part, consistent with her earlier accounts of the events. Where there were discrepancies between the words previously used, for example to the police of ‘groped’ or ‘grabbed’ in relation to the Registrant touching her bottom, the Panel accepted Person A’s explanation that she was detailing one event in particular to the police. It considered that this did not undermine her credibility. She had performed well on the placement, been signed-off on her competencies, would not be working again alongside the Registrant and had no ulterior motive in making a complaint. The Panel found that her account and what she was accusing the Registrant of were not excessive, she did not seek to embellish her account, and that this tended to strengthen her credibility. The Panel considered her to be rather naïve and innocent, and accepted her assertion that she was shocked by the swearing and behaviour described as “banter” that she came across in the crew room.
42. JN’s evidence was limited to his involvement in the Trust’s investigation, but the Panel found him to be a straightforward and frank witness. It considered, however, that his inclusion of opinion evidence in his investigation report, particularly as he had formed this view before he had interviewed all witnesses, undermined his credibility. The Panel accepted his limited role but also noted the significant gaps in his investigation and was of the view that it was inadequate in establishing the facts.
43. The Registrant presented a clear, controlled and consistent account, which was also consistent with his earlier accounts of events given during the previous investigations. The Panel considered him to be guarded in giving his evidence and was of the view that he did not adequately answer some of the questions put to him, particularly in relation to the alleged comments made to Person A around “nemesis” and “cry bitch.” The Panel found that his account did not hold up to careful and detailed scrutiny. For example, when the Registrant stated that he was never alone with Person A it became clear that, in fact, there were occasions when no other crew mates were present in the back of the ambulance; but the Registrant was choosing to include the presence of a patient in his statement of not being alone with Person A. The Registrant told the Panel that he had mentored 50-60 people, but it became apparent to the Panel that he had only mentored 2 student Paramedics from UEA. The Panel also noted that in his police statement, the Registrant stated that he had never received a complaint; this was not true as he knew that Person B, his only other student Paramedic mentee, had lodged a formal complaint against him.
44. Character witness PL was the Registrant’s personal friend and welfare support officer; he was also the Investigating Officer for the Trust investigation into a destruction of Morphine discrepancy incident. The Panel considered him to be prone to loyalties and that his description of the issues faced by the Registrant as being “extremely distasteful” reflected his opinion that the Registrant had not behaved as alleged. The Panel considered that, from his oral evidence, PL demonstrated tolerance of inappropriate comments which he referred to as “banter.” Although PL stated in his character reference that he had no issues with the Registrant’s clinical practice, this was clearly contradicted by the destruction of Morphine discrepancy incident that PL had himself investigated.
45. The Panel considered JH to be clear, balanced and credible but his evidence was limited in scope. The Panel noted that his written evidence conflicted with the evidence of others in that he acknowledged that the Registrant and Person A were “probably” alone at times in the back of the ambulance.
46. JJ was initially assertive in giving her evidence to the Panel and clearly had a strong belief in her conclusions. The Panel considered that her evidence became weaker as it was examined. It was apparent that JJ was looking at Person A’s experiences through her own eyes and her own ability to “give as good as she gets” and she did not understand that another person might find, for example, the “banter” challenging. The Panel considered that JJ over-stated her experience and ability to read body language as a result of close protection training she had done and was not able to back up her assertions. JJ also explained that when she first met Person A prior to commencing working with her, that she thought “Oh God, another student” Overall, the Panel found that JJ demonstrated bias and was not a reliable witness.
47. The Panel considered that LR’s testimony was confused and inconsistent. Her explanation of the discrepancy between her email of February 2018 and her witness statement and oral testimony over 18 months later was not credible and caused the Panel concern.
48. The Panel carefully considered the live evidence, the witness statements, all the documents before it and the submissions of both parties. The Panel considered the context of these allegations. The Registrant was in a position of power over Person A. Not only was there an imbalance of power between them, but her vulnerability had been heightened by the fact that she had vomited in the first ride-out in December 2016. It accepted Person A’s evidence that she wanted to learn from her mentor. In addition, it also accepted that she was concerned that his description of the previous student, as being his “nemesis” and that she was now struggling, reflected his potential power over her. Therefore, she was challenged by the conflict between not wanting to spend time with him and wanting to stay on the right side of him and show willingness. The Panel accepted the HCPC’s submission that the fact that witnesses did not see the Registrant touch Person A did not mean it had not happened. The Panel bore in mind that Person A had reported the incidents to her Course Director, to the police and had attended the hearing despite the fact that the police took no further action and the Trust found that her allegations of sexual misconduct not to be proved.
Particular 1 – Proved
“On one or more occasion(s) you touched Person A’s breast(s) over her clothing.”
49. Person A said that she wore a pen in the left breast pocket of her paramedic uniform when on placement. She said on more than one occasion in July 2017, when in the back of the ambulance, the Registrant reached for her pen in her breast pocket, that he put his hand on her breast and that it was “a lingered touch”. She said that it felt like he was using the excuse of getting the pen to touch her breast inappropriately and that he would never do it when there were other people around, such as in a hospital. She said that she purposefully moved her pen to her right-hand trouser pocket but, as she was used to having it in her breast pocket, she would unintentionally place it back there.
50. The Registrant accepted that he would have borrowed a pen from Person A on 3 or more occasions. He said that Person A carried pens in her sleeve pocket and breast pocket and that he would always ask to borrow her pen from her sleeve pocket. Whist in examination in chief he said that he had never taken a pen without asking, in answer to a question from the Panel, the Registrant said, “If I did take it, I’d have taken it from her sleeve but I can’t recall.”
51. On balance, the Panel preferred Person A’s evidence to that of the Registrant and the Panel placed weight on her candid conclusion that she was ashamed that she did not “call him out on it” the first time, that she thought it was best to “just keep quiet” and that he continued to do it. It determined that, on the balance of probabilities, Person A wore a pen in the breast pocket of her uniform, that the Registrant reached for the pen from that pocket and did touch Person A’s breast or breasts over her clothing.
Particular 2 – Proved
“On one or more occasions you touched Person A’s bottom over her clothing.”
52. Person A described to the Panel the narrow space between the bed and the seats in the ambulance and that the sharps bin and the waste bin are behind the bed. Person A said that on at least one occasion, she leant across the bed to put something in the bin and, as she leant over, the Registrant stepped behind her. She said that she felt him press up against her and that she thought it was deliberate. She said that there’s not enough room in an ambulance and that, as she was at the bin for a short time, he could have waited for her to move. She said that the Registrant did not say anything to her and that she did not say anything to him. Person A said in her police statement that the Registrant “grabbed” her bottom; to the university, she said that he “groped” her bottom during each shift. In oral evidence, Person A said that this was the case and that these terms related to his actions when making contact with her in the specific manner and on these occasions that she described. She could not recall where the other crew member was but that she was not in the back of the ambulance.
53. The Registrant acknowledged that he was in close proximity with Person A in the back of the ambulance. His evidence was that if he needed to move to look at the monitor, he would have put his hand on the small of Person A’s back and shoulder and accepted that “there were times I’d do that.” He denied that he would have placed his hands any lower as that would have been intrusive.
54. The Panel was satisfied, as previously stated, that the difference in wording of groped/grabbed used in the various statements made by the Person A did not mean that she was lying or had misrepresented what happened. The Panel was of the view that Person A dealt with the challenge about the different verbs used in a credible way and accepted her explanation. On balance, the Panel preferred Person A’s evidence to that of the Registrant and was satisfied that the Registrant did move behind her and touched Person A’s bottom.
Particular 3 – Proved
“On one occasion you touched Person A’s thigh(s).”
55. Person A’s evidence to the Panel was that she wore a fob-watch on her left-hand belt loop and the Registrant would stare at it. Person A said that the Registrant leant over and inappropriately touched her thigh in the act of taking hold of this watch when there was no “valid” reason for him to do so. She explained that he was wearing his own watch and there was a clock on display in the ambulance. Person A said that there was no patient in the ambulance at the time and she could not recall if the vehicle was moving. In her police statement, Person A said that the Registrant reached across and grabbed the watch that he had “constantly” been looking at; she accepted at this hearing that the Registrant frequently looked at the fob watch, rather than constantly.
56. The Registrant “categorically denied” this allegation. His evidence was that he did not recall a fob watch; that he certainly did not reach across to get it. He said that he wears a wristwatch and that, in any event, there is a digital clock in the ambulance.
57. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel accepted Person A’s evidence and was satisfied that the Registrant had touched Person A’s thigh when it was not necessary for him to do so.
Particular 4 – Not proved
“On one occasion you wrapped your arms around person A’s body and held her hands.”
58. Person A’s evidence was that she was opening a glass medicine vial in front of the Registrant and was struggling to get the top of the vial as she hadn’t done it many times before. Person A said that she did not ask for help, although she had been struggling for a while. She said that the Registrant stood behind her, put his arms around her and put his hands on top of hers to open the vial. The vial opened. She said that this made her feel extremely uncomfortable as this was probably the occasion on which he made the most physical contact with her and it lasted the longest time. In her written statement, she said that she did not say anything to the Registrant as she was shocked and scared; in her oral evidence she said that she could not recall if she said anything to him. Person A said that she could not recall on which shift this happened but that there was a patient in the back of the ambulance at the time of the incident, although she did not remember the patient saying anything.
59. The Registrant denied this allegation and maintained that, “It didn’t happen at all.” He agreed that vials can be “tricky” to open but said that it would be very poor practice to place your arms around the front of someone as the pressure of 2 people would risk the vial shattering. It was the Registrant’s evidence that, in the 5 shifts worked with Person A in July 2017, only 2 glass vials were opened, one of Morphine and one of Ondansetron. He said that Person A opened the Ondansetron, that he gave her instructions on how to open it but did not lean over her and did not make physical contact with her from behind.
60. LR was adamant that she did not see the Registrant wrap his arms around Person A on this shift.
61. The Panel was not satisfied that the HCPC had provided sufficient evidence for the Panel to find this particular proved. The Panel accepted that both Morphine and Ondansetron are kept in glass vials. Person A’s evidence, however, was that this incident of the Registrant wrapping his arms around her was not part of the Morphine or Ondansetron incident at the train station. LR stated that the Registrant did not stand behind Person A on this shift in order to demonstrate how to open the vial. The evidence of all the other witnesses was that no medication had been administered on the other shifts. There was no evidence presented to the Panel that conflicted with LR’s account. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, the Panel did not find this proved.
5. “You made the following inappropriate comments to Person A:
a) ‘Today we will have to make you cry bitch’ or words to that effect
62. Person A said that she was completing a component of her PAD with the Registrant in the crew room and that he noted there was a competency relating to “engaging and communicating appropriately”. Person A stated that the Registrant said, “I am going to make you cry you bitch” and then laughed. Person A said that she particularly remembered the use of the word “bitch” but that she “laughed it off” and did not say anything to the Registrant. She said that there was “quite a lot of banter passed around in the crew room and I think this comment was meant in jest but it made me feel uncomfortable.” Person A could not recall whether anybody in the crew room said anything but said that she didn’t think the comment would have stood out as “there are a lot of comments like that.” She said that she raised concerns because the comment was directed at her.
63. The Registrant denied this particular. He said that he would not have threatened to make someone cry. He accepted that he uses the term “tea bitch” in reference to himself and “bag bitch” in reference to himself and others. However, he stated that he would not use the word “bitch” as derogatory, personal comment to others.
64. The Panel considered the context of this allegation and the evidence presented. It preferred Person A’s evidence, which it found clear and plausible. It accepted Person A’s evidence that the comment was made in the context of the discussion that she was having with the Registrant around the competency of how Person A engages with patients within her PAD. The Panel was mindful that there was supporting evidence of the Registrant and some of his colleagues using the word “bitch”. It was of the view that unless JJ had been present and clearly tuned in to this specific conversation between Person A and the Registrant as her mentor, it would not have stood out to JJ.
65. The Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Registrant did make this comment to Person A and it also found that it was an inappropriate comment, in terms of the use of the word “bitch”, the threat to make her cry and the reinforcement of his power over her.
b) ‘She is my nemesis and she is struggling now’ or words to that effect;
66. Person A said the Registrant referred several times to his “nemesis” but that it was specifically used soon after she met the Registrant, when they talked about her goals for the placement and what she would need to work on and get signed off. She said that the Registrant spoke about his previous student to her in detail, that she was struggling and that this appeared to amuse him because he then laughed. Person A said that the Registrant intimated that she had to be careful otherwise she would also become his “nemesis”, which she took to mean an enemy. In her written statement, Person A said that the Registrant spoke about not wanting to mentor another student after having mentored the former student the previous year.
67. The Registrant admitted this particular. He admitted that it was totally inappropriate to use the word “nemesis” and that, although Person A had never mentioned it to him, he agreed that it may have made Person A feel uncomfortable.
68. The Panel found that the Registrant did say this comment, or words to that effect and that it was inappropriate. It therefore found this sub-particular proved.
c) ‘If you’re good you can have a day off’ or words to that effect.
69. Person A told the Panel that the Registrant made this comment at the start of their last shift together and that she felt that it was used as bribery, a sign of power and authority, rather than as a reward for having completed her placement.
70. The Registrant admitted this particular but denied that it was intended to be threatening and that it was not a question of him asserting his power. He said that his comment was meant only as a reward, as a ‘thank you’ to her for all her hard work because Person A had completed all of the elements required. The Registrant said that he was aware that Person A commuted to work and he offered her the day off to avoid her the time and cost of her commute. The Panel found this sub-particular proved.
71. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant did make this comment to Person A and that it was an inappropriate comment. It did not accept the Registrant’s account that this was simply a reward and a thank you. The evidence was clear that Person A had already done all that she needed to do to be signed off and considered that the Registrant’s use of the conditional tense of “if you are good” was an attempt to assert his power over Person A unnecessarily and inappropriately.
Particular 6 – Not proved
You allowed Person A to administer Morphine to a patient when she was not authorised to do so.
72. Person A said that there was an occasion when she and the Registrant were treating a patient who required Morphine and that she vaguely recollected it to be a job that they were called to at Cambridge station. She said that she knew that, as a Student Paramedic, she could not administer Morphine. She said that she recalled the Registrant drawing up and recording the Morphine. She said that she could not recall the dosage. She said that LR had already gone into the front cab of the ambulance, ready to drive, so only Person A, the Registrant and the patient were present. Person A’s evidence was that the Registrant gave the Morphine to her and said, “do it slowly.” Person A stated that she said to the Registrant that she could not administer the Morphine as a student, that the Registrant said, “I know”, persisted and gave the Morphine to her, so she administered it to the patient. When questioned by the Registrant’s representative, Person A said that she could not remember she had been asked to give the patient Ondansetron on the same occasion, but that she was sure it was Morphine as “I knew I shouldn’t be giving it.” Person A said that she was ashamed that she did not report this straight away but that she was worried about the consequences that it would have for her.
73. The Registrant’s evidence was that he broke the Morphine vial, drew it up and administered 2.5mg of Morphine to the patient. He accepted that LR might not have seen him administer the Morphine but said that when he disposed of the excess Morphine, LR and Person A were in the back of the ambulance. The Registrant’s evidence was that the patient began to feel unwell, so he decided that Ondansetron should be given additionally. He said that Person A broke the vial of Ondansetron, while LR was still in the back of the ambulance. He advised Person A that she could give Ondansetron slowly over 2 minutes- he explained to the Panel that if it is given fast, it does not work. He said that Person A drew up the Ondansetron while LR was present and then LR left to go and drive the ambulance. The Registrant believed that Person A was mistaken and that she administered the Ondansetron, not the Morphine.
74. The Panel considered that the evidence presented by the HCPC was insufficient for it to find this particular proved. LR’s evidence was confused and unhelpful to the Panel, changing her stance as to whether she actually saw the Morphine being administered by the Registrant or whether she simply assumed that it had been administered by him.
75. The Panel accepted the Registrant’s evidence that Morphine and Ondansetron had to be administered slowly. The Panel noted LR’s evidence that Morphine can be “whacked in” and that Ondansetron had to be administered “more slowly”. It did not find LR’s evidence credible. It also bore in mind Person A’s recollection that she was told to administer the drug slowly to the patient. Due to the conflicting accounts and incomplete evidence before it, the Panel did not find that it was Person A who administered Morphine. Accordingly, it found this particular not proved.
Particular 7 – Proved
“Your actions as described at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 were sexually motivated.”
76. The Panel considered the definition of “Sexual” in section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which states:
For the purposes of this Part ( [except sections 15A and 71] 1), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that -
(a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.”
The Panel considered that section 78(b) is relevant. It noted that the test is that of a reasonable person and that an act may be sexual because of its nature, because of its circumstances, and because of the purpose.
77. The Panel considered the case law carefully. The Panel had in mind the definition of ‘sexually motivated’ given in Basson v GMC  EWHC 505 in which Mostyn J stated that a sexual motive may be inferred from conduct done in pursuit of sexual gratification. In making such a finding, the Panel must have regard to inference or deduction from the surrounding circumstances and the evidence as a whole. It reviewed the guidance in the case Arunkalaivanan v GMC. It was mindful of the need to consider and assess all the evidence, including the character evidence. It considered all the circumstances of the case. It bore in mind that it may find sexual motivation only if it finds, on the balance of probabilities, that there was sexual motivation from direct evidence or where it can reasonably draw inferences of sexual motivation from the evidence.
78. In relation to particulars 1, 2 and 3 (particular 4 having been found not proved and therefore not considered) the Panel asked itself what motivated the Registrant, who has a long career as a Paramedic and is of good character, to touch Person’s A’s breast(s), bottom and thigh(s).
79. The Panel noted that Person A contended that the Registrant’s reaching into her breast pocket was completely unnecessary because the Registrant, also carried his own pens, so did not need to borrow hers. In any event, had he needed to borrow a pen, he should have asked her and that she felt as if he was using the excuse of getting the pen to touch her breast inappropriately. The Panel accepted this and considered that the nature of the conduct and indeed, a pattern of conduct, was such that a reasonable member of the public would consider that it must have been done with a view to sexual gratification.
80. The Panel determined that there was no other plausible explanation for his actions in particulars 2 or 3 either, other than that they were sexually motivated. The Panel considered that the touching found proved in each of particulars 1, 2 and 3 was inappropriate, was in pursuit of sexual gratification and that it could properly infer a sexual motive. The Panel therefore determined that particular 7 was proved in relation to particulars 1, 2 and 3 on the balance of probabilities.
Decision on Grounds
81. The Panel next considered whether any of the facts proved amounted to misconduct. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had in mind the definition of misconduct in Roylance v General Medical Council  1 AC 311 to the effect that misconduct is “some act or omission which falls short of what is proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances.” The Panel was advised that misconduct must be serious misconduct of a kind that would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.
82. In considering whether the ground of misconduct was made out, the Panel reviewed each of its individual findings of fact against the Registrant. The Panel was aware that not every instance of falling short of what would be proper in the circumstances, and not every breach of the HCPC standards would be sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct. Therefore, the Panel had careful regard to the context and circumstances of the matters found proved. The Panel has found that the Registrant made inappropriate comments to Person A, a student Paramedic whom he was mentoring, and behaved towards her in a manner that was sexually motivated.
83. In reaching its decision on misconduct, the Panel had in mind the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) and concluded that the following standard was engaged and was breached:
Standard 9.1: You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
84. The Panel also considered the HCPC Standards of Proficiency for Paramedics (2014) and concluded that the following standards were engaged and breached:
Standard 3.1: understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct
Standard 8.1: be able to demonstrate effective and appropriate verbal and non-verbal skills in communicating information, advice, instruction and professional opinion to service users, colleagues and others
Standard 8.4: be able to identify anxiety and stress in patients, carers and others and recognise the potential impact upon communication
Standard 9.1: be able to work, where appropriate, in partnership with service users, other professionals, support staff and others
Standard 9.2: understand the need to build and sustain professional relationships as both an independent practitioner and collaboratively as a member of a team
85. The Panel, exercising its own professional judgement, concluded that the conduct found proved in each individual particular fell seriously short of what would be proper in the circumstances and amounted to misconduct. The Registrant’s behaviour towards Person A, a student whom he was mentoring, was deliberate and intentional. It indicated a pattern of inappropriate behaviour and an abuse of his position of trust that was wholly unacceptable. The misconduct caused emotional harm to Person A who was vulnerable and intimidated. In respect of the inappropriate comments, the Panel did not consider that the culture in the workplace at the relevant time in any way excused what the Registrant said, or made it in any way a less serious form of misconduct. The Panel noted the “nemesis” comment, which involved the Registrant informing Person A early on in her placement with him, that Person B was now struggling. This, together with the Registrant laughing as he said it, increased Person A’s vulnerability. Overall, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct lacked professional integrity and was of the view that fellow registrants would consider it to be nothing short of deplorable.
86. The Panel was in no doubt that the Registrant's behaviour had the clear potential to undermine public confidence in the profession and it found that to characterise it as anything other than misconduct would fail to uphold proper professional standards and would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory function of the HCPC.
Decision on impairment
87. The Panel next considered the issue of current impairment. It heard submissions from both parties, accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Finding Fitness to Practise Impaired.
88. The Panel recognised that there is no burden or standard of proof and that this is a matter for the Panel’s independent judgment. It bore in mind the guidance in the Grant case. The Panel’s duty is not only to protect service users but to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process, which includes the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Paramedics occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected at all times to be professional.
89. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered the evidence of how the Registrant has conducted his work as a Paramedic in the past. The established misconduct in this case is serious as it involves repeated sexually motivated behaviour, through which Person A suffered emotional harm. It was clear from references and testimonials provided to the Panel, including from his line managers who were aware of the allegations, that the Registrant is a good and competent Paramedic in a clinical setting. However, this case is not concerned with clinical issues. The Panel balanced the evidence before it from the Registrant’s colleagues that he is otherwise appropriate in his professional dealings with colleagues, with the conduct found proved in this case and the fact that a previous complaint was made by Person B, also a student whom the Registrant mentored.
90. In considering the personal component and whether the Registrant’s conduct poses a risk to others, the Panel considered the areas of insight, remorse and remediation. The Panel gave very careful consideration to the Registrant’s written reflection dated 2 October 2019. The Panel noted that this was not the first written reflection undertaken by the Registrant; the Panel was informed that he had written a previous reflective piece following a complaint by Person B, the Registrant’s previous student whom he mentored, but this was not before the Panel. Despite that previous reflection, another complaint emerged. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s level of insight was limited and that he had shown limited remorse for his shortcomings. The Panel considered that, although the written reflection of 2 October 2019 included a brief apology to Person A, it focused in the main on the impact that Person A’s allegations had had on him and on his self-confidence. In terms of remediation, the Panel noted that although the Registrant had undertaken additional learning, there was no detail of what this learning entailed and how it was pertinent to the issues in this case. For example, although the Panel noted that he attended a Practice Placement Educator course on mentoring, whilst this would likely deal with communication, it would not address the pertinent issue of sexually motivated conduct. In light of all the evidence before it, the Panel could only conclude that there was a risk of recurrence of the misconduct.
91. In relation to the public component, the Panel also reminded itself of the public component in Cohen v General Medical Council  EWHC 581: “the need to protect the individual and the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour which the public expect…and that the public interest includes, amongst other things, the protection of service users and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession.” In relation to the wider public interest, the Panel has no doubt that an informed member of the public would consider that public confidence in the Paramedic profession would be seriously undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The nature of the misconduct, involving sexually motivated conduct towards a junior colleague whom he was mentoring, is such that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made. The Panel also took the view that it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Paramedic profession if it did not find impairment in this case. Paramedics should be in no doubt that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
92. The Registrant’s fitness to practise is therefore impaired on both the personal and public components.
Decision on Sanction
93. The Presenting Officer and the Registrant’s Representative reminded the Panel of the principles to be applied when deciding on the appropriate sanction. The Panel considered the HCPC Sanctions Policy, as revised in March 2019, and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She reminded the Panel that it should consider any sanction in ascending order and apply the least restrictive sanction necessary to protect the public. It should also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors and bear in mind proportionality and the public interest. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that the primary purpose of sanction was protection of the public and that there was a need to balance that with the interests of the Registrant.
94. The Panel began its deliberations by identifying the mitigating and aggravating factors before reaching a final decision on sanction.
95. The mitigating factors are as follows:
• The Registrant has had a long career as a Paramedic and there have been no previous regulatory concerns about his conduct.
• There was independent evidence, including from his line managers, that he was a professional and capable Paramedic.
• The Registrant has reflected on his practice over the last 2 years, since the allegations arose. There has been no repetition of the conduct.
• He has engaged fully throughout these regulatory proceedings.
The aggravating factors are as follows:
• The conduct ground proved includes repeated sexually motivated conduct.
• The conduct involved a breach of trust when the Registrant was in a position of seniority and Person A’s mentor. There was a significant imbalance of power between the Registrant and Person A.
• There was limited evidence of remorse or insight at this stage, with a consequent risk of repetition of the misconduct.
96. The Panel then considered the available sanctions and the principles in the Sanctions Policy. It had in mind that that the purpose of the sanction was to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process. The Panel also had regard to the principle of proportionality in determining the appropriate sanction.
97. The Panel had regard to paragraphs 76-77 of the Sanctions Policy. Paragraph 76 states: “Sexual misconduct is a very serious matter, which has a significant impact on the public and public confidence in the profession. Paragraph 77 states: Because of the gravity of these types of cases, where a panel finds a registrant impaired because of sexual misconduct, it is likely to impose a more serious sanction. Where it deviates from this approach, it should provide clear reasoning”.
98. The Panel approached the ladder of sanction, beginning with the least restrictive sanction first. The allegations found proved are serious and deliberate; they involve a breach of trust, which is a fundamental tenet of the profession, and a finding of sexual motivation. It determined that such findings are too serious to make no order (or to consider mediation).
99. The Panel then considered whether to impose a Caution Order, but decided that it was also inappropriate in this case, because of the sexual misconduct and the limited evidence of insight or remediation.
100. The Panel next considered a Conditions of Practice Order. It was mindful that the Registrant has been subject to an Interim Conditions of Practice Order and has complied with its terms. It noted, however, that the purpose of interim orders is to address risk and that they have a separate and different purpose from final sanction. The Panel took into account paragraph 108 of the Sanctions Policy which states that Conditions are less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving “abuse of professional position, including vulnerability” and “sexual misconduct.” In light of its findings, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practice Order would be an adequate or proportionate sanction and would not satisfy the public interest. Further, in light of its findings of sexually motivated conduct, the Panel was of the view that there were no conditions of practice that would be workable and proportionate.
101. The Panel considered whether a Suspension Order was appropriate after taking into account the guidance at paragraph 121 of the Sanctions Policy. The Panel has found that the Registrant’s actions were serious and deliberate and involved an abuse of trust and serious breaches of professional standards. In addition, the matter of sexual misconduct requires a more serious sanction as a matter of principle. The Panel has found that the Registrant has shown limited insight and little evidence of remediation. The Panel was mindful that sanction is primarily about public safety, that the public interest is important and that suspension is not an appropriate sanction merely to allow a Registrant more time to develop insight. Given its findings as to the nature and gravity of the misconduct in this case, coupled with the lack of insight and remediation, the Panel determined that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate or proportionate. Suspension would fail to adequately address the public interest and the need to send an appropriate deterrent message to the profession.
102. The Panel considered the Registrant’s interests. However, in light of its findings, the Panel considered that the need to protect the public and the public interest, by sending a clear message upholding and declaring proper standards, outweighs the Registrant's interests.
103. The Panel considered paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy and noted that “this is a sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving (this list is not exhaustive): …abuse of professional position, including vulnerability; …sexual misconduct…” The Panel determined that any lesser sanction than a striking off order would fail to reflect the nature and gravity of the misconduct, it would lack the necessary deterrent effect on the profession and would not provide the necessary protection for the public in its broadest sense. The Panel accordingly determined to impose a striking off order.
Order: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of David B Glenton from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.
1. The Panel heard an application from the Presenting Officer to cover the appeal period by imposing an 18 month Interim Order on the Registrant’s registration. She submitted that such an order is necessary to protect the public and is otherwise in the public interest. The Registrant’s Representative made no submissions.
2. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. It had careful regard to Paragraphs 133-135 of the Sanctions Policy and to Paragraph 7 of the HCPTS Practice Note on Interim Orders, which offers guidance on interim orders imposed at final hearings after a sanction has been imposed.
3. The Panel recognised that its power to impose an Interim Order is discretionary, that the imposition of such an order is not an automatic outcome of fitness to practise proceedings in which a Striking-off Order has been imposed, and that the Panel must take into consideration the impact of such an order on the Registrant. The Panel was, however, mindful of its findings in relation to the misconduct in this case, involving sexually motivated conduct, and the risk of repetition.
4. The Panel decided to impose an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001. The Panel was satisfied that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest to maintain confidence in this regulatory process. The Panel has had regard to the misconduct found proved and the resulting public protection concerns and the full reasons set out in its decision for the substantive order in reaching the decision to impose an Interim Order. In the circumstances, it also considered that public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be seriously undermined were the Registrant allowed to remain in practice during the appeal period.
5. The period of this order is for 18 months to allow for the possibility of an appeal to be made and determined.
6. If no appeal is made, then the Interim Suspension Order will be replaced by the Striking-off Order 28 days after the Registrant is sent the decision of this hearing in writing.
Interim Suspension Order:
The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Social Work 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 Mr David B Glenton
|Date||Panel||Hearing type||Outcomes / Status|
|04/11/2019||Conduct and Competence Committee||Final Hearing||Struck off|