Richard J Dodd

Preliminary matters:

Proof of Service

1. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had sight of an email dated 26 November 2021, sent to the Registrant at his registered email address, giving notice of the hearing. There was also an email receipt proving delivery. It therefore determined that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Panel) (Procedure) Rules 2003.

Proceeding in absence

2. With the Registrant not present, Ms Reid made an application to proceed in his absence.
3. The Panel heard and accepted the legal advice from the Legal Assessor, who referred it to the case of the GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162, and the principles to be considered when deciding whether or not to proceed in the absence of a Registrant. The Panel had in mind the need to exercise its discretion to proceed with the utmost care and caution, particularly because the Registrant was not represented.
4. The Panel noted that the Registrant was aware that the hearing was due to go ahead today, 27 January 2022, and that, in the event that he did not attend, the hearing could go ahead in his absence, as detailed in the Notice of Hearing. In the pre-hearing form the Registrant completed in November 2021, he said that he did not intend to attend this hearing. In an email, sent to him on 12 January 2022, by the Hearings Officer, he was asked if this was still his intention. He responded in an email dated 15 January 2022, asking if he could provide a “final written submission”, but not answering the question if it was still his intention not to attend the hearing. He was told that he could submit a written statement and this he did in a subsequent email, the content of which is referred to below within this determination. Again he did not say whether he would be attending the hearing, but the Panel considered it a reasonable inference to draw from the tenor of the email that he would not be.
5. The Panel noted that the Registrant faced serious allegations, there was a clear public interest in the matter being dealt with expeditiously and there was a witness in attendance. The Panel considered an adjournment would serve no useful purpose, because it seemed most unlikely that the Registrant would attend on another occasion. Furthermore, the Panel noted he had not requested an adjournment. In light of the Registrant’s clear, long-term settled decision not to attend the hearing the Panel decided that he had voluntarily waived his right to be present and his right to be represented at this hearing. The Panel took into account the fact that the Registrant had provided detailed written submissions, which the Panel would take into account when reaching its decisions.
6. The Panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the matter should proceed notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant. The Panel would draw no adverse inference from the Registrant’s non-attendance and take into account any documents within the papers that furthered his case.

Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private

7. Ms Reid applied for those parts of the hearing that dealt with the Registrant’s health to be heard in private in order to protect his private life. Ms Reid also applied for the hearing to be in private when considering Particular 1 since, if the Panel were to find it not proved, it would mean it had been unable to contradict the Registrant’s account that he was engaging in a sexual fantasy and that would be a private matter, which ought not to be aired in public. Ms Reid suggested that once a decision had been made on the facts of Particular 1, if found proved the hearing could revert to being in public.
8. Ms Reid also made it clear that at this stage the HCPC was only asking the Panel to consider the misconduct matter and not the health matter, which would be dealt with separately following the conclusion of the misconduct matter.
9. The Panel considered the application with care and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel noted that the Rules allow for the hearing, or part of the hearing, to be held in private where to do so is necessary to protect the private life of a Registrant. Accordingly, the Panel agreed that where mention was made of the Registrant’s health, those parts of the hearing would be heard in private.
10. With reference to the matters alleged in Particular 1, the Panel also considered it appropriate for the entire hearing on the facts of Particular 1 to be dealt with in private. This was because to do otherwise could cause disproportionate damage to the Registrant, which went beyond simply being embarrassing, and could put him at physical risk from those who might seek to persecute him, given the nature of the allegation. The Panel noted that the police had asked for this material to be removed from the internet as they considered there to be a risk of physical harm to the Registrant. The Panel found this to be a compelling reason for privacy at this stage. If, however, the Panel finds Particular 1 proved then it would revert to a public hearing thereafter when considering misconduct and impairment.

Application to amend

11. Ms Reid applied to amend Particular 1 to include “and whom you believed to be a 15-year old child” at the end of the Allegation. Ms Reid provided a detailed skeleton argument in support of her application and expanded upon it orally. She said that the reason for the proposed amendment was to clarify and narrow the case against the Registrant in order to focus the Panel’s determinations on the crux of the alleged misconduct in this case.
12. Ms Reid submitted that the nature of the misconduct allegation is that the Registrant engaged in sexually motivated communication via an online platform with a person who posed as a 15-year-old child. However, in the HCPC’s submission, the key question in determining whether this amounts to misconduct, and how serious the misconduct may be, is whether the Registrant actually believed the person with whom he was communicating was a 15-year-old child. She said that was the core of the HCPC’s concerns in this case – that the Registrant did in fact send these communications whilst believing this person to be a child.
13. Ms Reid pointed out that it was clear from the Registrant’s police interview, and other submissions he has made, that his position was that he at no time knew or suspected the person he was communicating with was a 15-year-old child. He described how it was often the case that people on Grindr would pretend to be younger than they were and this was all part of the fantasy that would be played out. Ms Reid said that the central concern about the Registrant’s alleged conduct was whether he believed he was communicating with a child, not whether he may have engaged in fantasy role-playing or play-acting on an adult dating site without ever believing he was communicating with a child.
14. Ms Reid submitted that the proposed amendment would in fact help clarify the HCPC’s case and give the Registrant the opportunity to make clear that his account is that he did not believe that this person was a 15-year-old at the time, and the reasons why he submits that the Panel should believe him. Ms Reid went further and submitted that the proposed amendment would in fact be beneficial to the Registrant in that it would narrow the HCPC’s case and increase the burden on the HCPC to prove that the Registrant not only engaged in the conduct described but that he did so whilst believing that the other person was a 15-year-old child.
15. In his email sent to the HCPC in January 2022, the Registrant objected to the application to amend on a number of grounds. He said the wording the HCPC wished to add was just the opinion of the HCPC and was not supported by the evidence provided by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He said the additional wording was contrary to the statement he provided to the Police and would mean the HCPC were alleging he made a false statement to the police. It would also, he said, be an allegation of a criminal offence, which had been investigated and no further action taken. He further objected to the proposed wording because, as he said, at the interim order hearings it had been said that the outcome of the Police investigation would determine the HCPC’s investigation. That outcome had been no further action and yet the HCPC was still pursuing the matter.
16. The Registrant also took exception with other parts of the HCPC’s Allegation, but since these were not part of the application to amend they were not something the Panel had to consider at this stage. They would, however, be taken into account, where relevant, when deciding the matters alleged.
17. The Panel heard and accepted the legal advice from the Legal Assessor that it could amend the Allegation provided it was satisfied that it was fair to do so and that the proposed amendment could be made without injustice.
18. The Panel noted that the Registrant had been informed of the proposed amendment and had objected to it. The amendment requested clearly changed the seriousness of the matter alleged and therefore made the allegation more onerous for the Registrant. However it also made it more onerous for the HCPC since it would be more difficult to prove. The Panel considered this case to be about alleged inappropriate communication with a child and that without the amendment the matter would in effect be under prosecuted. Furthermore, there was a danger that without the amendment the central issue might be considered at the misconduct stage where no burden or standard of proof is required and this would be unfair to the Registrant. The Panel considered that whilst the amendment would increase the seriousness of the case against the Registrant it would not alter his defence in any way, since he had always said he believed the person he was communicating with to be an adult.
19. The Panel was thus satisfied that to grant the application would not cause injustice to the Registrant and therefore decided to allow the amendment requested.

Witnesses

20. The Panel heard from one witness called on behalf of the HCPC:

• DC Katherine Brock - a Detective Constable within Warwickshire Police.

Background:

21. The Registrant is, and was at all material times, registered as a Paramedic with the HCPC. He was employed by West Midlands Ambulance Service from 3 April 1991 to 15 October 2018. His employment ended due to health reasons. However, the Registrant has confirmed to the HCPC that although he is not currently working he has kept his registration in the hope that his health might improve in the future.

The Police matter

22. On 11 September 2019, the HCPC received an anonymous referral from a member of the public indicating that the Registrant had been arrested. On 18th October 2019, the police informed the HCPC that the Registrant had been arrested, on 6 September 2019, on suspicion of “Attempted – Causing or inciting a male child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (No Penetration).”
23. On 29 September 2020, the police supplied a number of documents to the HCPC providing further information regarding the events surrounding the Registrant’s arrest. The documents indicated that an online group, “Children’s Innocence Matters” (CIM) had set up a “decoy” account on the adult dating app Grindr, an app specifically marketed for “gay, bi, trans and queer people.” The group had set up the decoy masquerading as a 15-year-old boy with the stated intention of identifying online predators to bring to the attention of the police.
24. DC Brock, of the Warwickshire Police, was tasked with investigating the allegation.
25. The Police Investigation Summary recorded as follows:

“During the material times [the Registrant] has been engaging in a conversation of a sexual nature with a 15 year old male via social media. [The Registrant] has been using the username ‘DAD WANTS LAD’. During the course of this conversation the the youth has been clear about his age and [the Registrant] has continue[d] to discuss matters of sexual nature. The conversation has culminated in an arrangement to meet the youth. [The Registrant] stated “I’VE GOT A CAMPER VAN, WE CAN KISS, CUDDLE, TOUCH AND DO MORE IF YOU WANT TO.” (sic)

26. Upon arrest a combination of current and old mobile phones and iPads together with an iMac computer were seized from the Registrant’s home address. All devices were sent off for analysis to the Force’s Digital Forensic Unit (“FDFU”).
27. The Registrant was interviewed the same day. He answered questions put to him and denied the alleged offence. The Police summary of that interview reads as follows:

“DODD stated that he was in a long term relationship with his partner, B. He said that he occasionally used GRINDR as an aid to masturbation. He would download the app, speak to people on there and when he had obtained sexual gratification he would stop the conversations and delete the app.
He says he does not meet anyone who he speaks to on the app although it is often discussed as if both parties do wish to meet, in his experience this is part of the fantasy. On any occasion that people he has been speaking to have appeared to be serious about wanting to meet he has blocked them from further contact.
He states that the name “DAD FOR LAD” is not intended to refer to any actual familial relationship - he has no children. “DAD” or “DADDY” is, he explains, a widely used term within the gay community used to refer to an older gay man. He states that it is a quite common sexual preference for older men to be attracted to younger (adult) men.
In respect of the conversation with MC (posing as L), DODD agrees that it was him having this conversation. He says that the profile picture on “L”[’s] account was someone clearly older than fifteen. He says the person in that picture was someone with stubble. DODD states that at no stage did he believe that the person he was conversing with was actually fifteen years old. He says that he knew he was talking to someone older because of the way they communicated. He said that a GRINDR user pretending to be younger than they are is not unusual and he has spoken to men before who have claimed to be young, but when asked for images have clearly been a lot older. DODD states that the claim that “L” was fifteen did not cause him arousal, he took it as being part of a make believe, reinforced (in his mind) by the reference to being “shy” and a “virgin”.
DODD states that he never had any intention of meeting “L” and when he received a WhatsApp message after the online conversation he immediately deleted it and blocked the number.”

28. The Panel was also provided with a handwritten statement from MC, the member of CIM who posed as L in the exchange with the Registrant. MC stated that they had been acting as a decoy for about two years. MC stated that on Thursday 5th September 2019 their child decoy “L” aged 15 years old was on an online app called Grindr, which is a gay app. MC stated they would never make first contact from their child decoy to any adult online. MC said that at 08:43 on 5 September 2019 their child decoy, L, received a message on the Grindr app from a username “DAD WANTS LAD” (DWL) The first message from this account to L was “Into daddy’s? I’m 50”. This was followed by a face picture of the male (redacted) and the following exchange:

L replied - U Dnt look 50 I’m 15
DWL replied - I’ve just turned 50 lol 15 eh?
L - Yh I am I can delete u if u Dnt wana chat
DWL - No that’s cool if you’re ok with me being 50?
L - Ok cool wat ya upto ? I’m round m8s skipping school lol wer ya from
DWL - Not much, just chilling. I’m in Rugby, wbu?
L - Swad I dunno wer rugby Is
DWL - Where are you from?
L - Swad do u no it
DWL - Yeah just lol, do you like older guys then? Any experience with older?
L - Na, I’m a virgin not out as gay yet my mate knows but he’s older we just chillin at his today I ain’t gone school lol it’s shit
DWL - Ha ha, don’t blame you lol So do you like the idea of being with a much older guy?
L - Dunno yet I’m shy
DWL - I’m Jason, are you too shy to tell me yours? Lol
L - U got anymore face pics
This was followed by a face picture sent by DWL, which is redacted so not possible to view.
DWL - U?
This was followed by a face picture sent by L, which is redacted so not possible to view.
DWL - Good looking boy
L - Thanks wat ya doin today
DWL - Nothing much, u want to get together?
L - Wat like meet up?
DWL - Yeah but no problem if you’re not comfortable
L - We chat first if ok cud meet tomoz after school do U work
DWL - Yeah that’s cool with me, I’m flexible with time so no worries
L - Cool wat do u do
DWL - Retired early as made enough money lol
L - Cool wat did u do u look to young to retire my granddad is older he still works
DWL - I’ve been with 15 year olds before if that makes things easier for you?
DWL - When did you turn 15?
L - Really oh ok then was they shy like me tho I’m a virgin
L - April 10th I turned 15
DWL - Have you ever done blowjobs?
L - Nothin yet
DWL - Do you get turned on thinking about it?
L - I get embarrassed
DWL - Why?
L - Dunno lol
DWL - Have you done anything with girls?
L - Was the lads that u had sex with shy like me tho
L - Kissed a girl last year didn’t like it always knew I was gay
DWL - Yeah but because I look younger and I took things gently they were fine. I didn’t have sex with all of them, some were happy just to get naked and cuddle, others I rimmed and gave blowjobs to
L - Cool wer ya wanna go tomoz if we meet tho
DWL - I’ve got a Camper Van, we can go somewhere and can kiss, cuddle, touch and do more if you want to?
L - No wayyyy u got a camper van omg I love them my nana got one ace ain’t they
DWL - Yeah it’s awesome, I love it
L - Show me pic of it brill
DWL then posted a picture of a camper van.
DWL - You like?
L - Omg that’s brill wats it like inside ? my nanna n grandads different
DWL - I’ll show you later as next door is having their Porsche touched up lol
DWL - Would you sit in the back with me?
L - Ok cool
DWL - Are you a boxers or briefs boy?
L - Boxers
DWL - Any particular brand?
DWL - I wear black CK boxers
L - Nice choice Ralph Lauren best
DWL - They’re hot
DWL - Anymore pics of you?
L - Wat yad doin this Morning u goin anywer
DWL - Nothing planned yet
L then sends another picture, which again is redacted so not possible to view.
L - I hate s life’s lol I’m half asleep can ya tell lol
DWL - You’re a really good looking boy, I love your earrings
L - Thanks just dead shy u really been with lads my age? Wish I wasn’t so shy
DWL - I’m just trying to imagine you in your Ralph Lauren boxers lol
DWL - Yeah I have, quite a few lads out there who want to get together with me
L - Omg so u sure I be ok
DWL - Yeah of course, we can start off slowly and build up over a period of time if you want?
L - Like what tho it all new to me
DWL - Kissing and gently touching each other’s body
L - Ok
DWL - You’ll probably be getting hard too lol
L - Will I
DWL - I’m sure you will
DWL - What makes you hard?
L - Ok my mates goin on at me to get off my fone cus he wants to play PS4 send ya number I watsapp or text later wen I go home cus I Dnt want anyone to no I’m talking to guys
DWL - Ok cool
DWL then texts a phone number which is redacted.
L - Message ya bout 5
DWL - Ok cool, enjoy your day (followed by a smiley emoji)
L - Cool goin home so. Been on PS4 all day

29. MC said they decided to call the contact number given by DWL a couple of hours later and a well-spoken male answered. MC asked who this was and the male said “Richard Dodd”. MC said they had got the wrong number. MC said they then Googled Richard Dodd and found information about him and pictures that matched the picture on Grindr.
30. MC, and other members of CIM, then decided to confront the Registrant and went around to his home address. They explained why they were there and showed him the evidence of the chat log with L. MC said that the Registrant admitted the chat and said it was just chat. He denied having had sex with young boys and reiterated that it was just chat. MC exhibited a copy of the call log, which was provided to the Panel (detailed above). The face pictures were blanked out.
31. It took a year to complete the Police investigation, mainly due to the delay in awaiting the results from the FDFU. No images or videos were found relating to the alleged offence. There were some searches for ‘boys underwear.’
32. DC Brock sent the matter to the CPS for a charging decision on 30 August 2020.
33. The CPS recommended that the Police take no further action against the Registrant for the following reasons:

(i) Grindr is an adult only site, so the Registrant would be entitled to start with the presumption that people on the site were likely to be over 18;
(ii) There was no verbal indication on the profile that the decoy was under 18;
(iii) The only information that the Registrant would have had about the decoy when he contacted him would have been the decoy’s profile picture. The profile picture is not contained in the exhibit. The print out of the Grindr chat provided by the witness has not been recovered from phone analysis. It cannot be obtained from Grindr. The witness has been asked, but no longer has the device used. The profile picture will have been an important piece of evidence. The Registrant claimed in interview that it showed a person with stubble who was clearly an adult; and
(iv) The Registrant suggests that it is not uncommon for adults to pose as teenagers on Grindr for sexual fantasy purposes. The CPS do not know if that is true or not, but was of the view it would be impossible to disprove.

34. The CPS lawyer stated that for all those reasons they concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction in this case.
35. Accordingly, the decision was made by the Police to take no further action against the Registrant.
36. With reference to Allegation 1, in his January 2022 email, the Registrant objected to the HCPC’s use of the term “online platform”, which, he said, was a generic term and included social media where the minimum age requirement can be 13, whereas he had only ever held accounts where the minimum age requirement was 18 and above. The Registrant also observed that the HCPC had not referred to it as “an adult (18+) online platform for the gay and LGBT community”. The Registrant said that the “CPS had been entirely clear in their report that it was entirely reasonable from the outset that communication was with a person of 18+ years, due to this being an adult dating site for the gay and LGBGT community.” He asserted that the HCPC had deliberately chosen to word the Allegation in this way to inaccurately convey the type of platform that it really was.

Decision on Facts:

37. In reaching its decisions on the facts in relation to Particular 1, the Panel took into account the evidence provided by the witness called by the HCPC and all the documentary evidence. The Panel also took into account the submissions made by Ms Reid on behalf of the HCPC. The Registrant was not present, however the Panel did take into account what he said in his police interview and in his email sent in January 2022 (referred to in detail above). The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and bore in mind that it was for the HCPC to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. It was not for the Registrant to disprove the allegations.
38. The Panel noted that in his January 2022 email the Registrant said that the HCPC would have to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. However, this reflects the criminal standard of proof rather than the civil standard, which is used in regulatory proceedings and which, as stated above, is on the balance of probabilities.
39. The Panel noted that much of the evidence relied on by the HCPC was hearsay evidence, which could affect the weight to be attached to it. However, the Panel noted that a key part of the evidence was the Police interview and that, given the formal nature of such an interview and the protections afforded a suspect in such circumstances, the Panel considered it was reasonable to give significant weight to that evidence.

Particular 1 - found proved

40. The key evidence relied on by the HCPC consisted of the exchange on Grindr and what the Registrant said in his Police interview. From these Ms Reid invited the Panel to infer that the Registrant believed that the person he was communicating with was a 15-year-old child. The Panel observed that the Registrant did not appear at any stage to dispute the content of the exchange or that he was the person referred to as Dad Wants Lad. There was clear evidence about the date on which the exchange took place, that it was on Grindr, an online platform, and from the content of the exchange it was clear that it was sexually motivated. The only contentious issue was whether the Registrant believed L to be a 15-year-old child.
41. It was the Registrant’s case, as told to the Police in interview, that he never believed that the person he was communicating with was 15. He said he would occasionally use Grindr as an aid to masturbation. His modus operandi would be to download the app, speak to people on it and, when he had obtained sexual gratification, he would stop the conversation and delete the app. He said he did not meet anyone he spoke to on the app and that although the parties often discussed meeting up, this was all part of the fantasy. He went further and said if anyone appeared to be serious about wanting to meet up he would block them from further contact.
42. The Registrant told the Police that the username Dad Wants Lad was not intended to refer to any actual familial relationship, but rather that Dad or Daddy were terms widely used within the gay community to refer to an older gay man. He added that it is a common sexual preference for older men to be attracted to younger adult men.
43. In respect of the conversation with MC (posing as L), the Registrant agreed that it was him having that conversation. He said that the profile picture on L’s account was someone clearly older than fifteen and that they had stubble. The Registrant told the Police that at no stage did he believe that the person he was conversing with was actually fifteen years old. He says that he knew he was talking to someone older because of the way they communicated. He said that a Grindr user pretending to be younger than they are is not unusual and he has spoken to men before who have claimed to be young, but when asked for images have clearly been a lot older. The Registrant said that the claim that L was fifteen did not cause him arousal as he took it as being part of a make believe, reinforced (in his mind) by the reference to being “shy” and a “virgin”.
44. The Registrant told the police that he never had any intention of meeting L, and when he received a WhatsApp message after the online conversation he immediately deleted it and blocked the number.
45. The Panel was somewhat sceptical about the Registrant’s attempt to portray his title as innocent. Dad Wants Lad was, it seemed to the Panel, a clear indication of an older man wanting a lad. The term “lad” was synonymous with “boy" rather than an adult male. Furthermore, the Panel, having considered the exchange with care, was not persuaded by the Registrant’s characterisation of the whole chat as some sort of fantasy designed to aid him with masturbation and thereafter to be disposed of. There was scant evidence of fantasy, but rather it read like an exchange between two people exploring what the other wanted and the possibility of meeting up.
46. There was repeated reference by L to school and being 15, a virgin and shy. Right at the start of the exchange L gives the Registrant the opportunity to indicate that he is not interested in boys with the exchange:

L replied - U Dnt look 50 I’m 15
DWL replied - I’ve just turned 50 lol 15 eh?
L - Yh I am I can delete u if u Dnt wana chat

47. However, rather than saying he does not want to chat with a 15-year-old, the Registrant responds with “No that’s cool if you’re ok with me being 50?” When L sends a picture the Registrant responds with “Good looking boy.” If, as the Registrant told the Police, the picture was not of a boy, why did he respond in such a way. The same was true of the second picture sent by L, which elicited a similar response from the Registrant, who said “You’re a really good looking boy, I love your earrings.”
48. When L was asking the Registrant questions about what his work had been, the Registrant steered the conversation away from that and instead told L that he had been with other 15-year-olds “if that makes things easier for you?” in a clear attempt to put the “shy” L at ease. He expands on this later saying how he would take things gently with the other lads he had been with and then goes on to provide a picture of his camper van. This again, in the Panel’s view, was not consistent with his supposed modus operandi to masturbate and then leave and delete the app. Instead it suggested a clear desire to physically meet up with L and this is further supported by the fact that he gave L his actual phone number: he could just as easily have given a false number if he really had no intention of meeting up with L. The provision of his phone number was entirely inconsistent with his account that this was a one-off fantasy, not to be taken any further. The Panel considered the whole content of the exchange portrayed the Registrant as grooming L with a view to meeting up and having some form of sexual exchange, rather than a method of providing instant sexual gratification for the Registrant at the time of the exchange.
49. In all the circumstances the Panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant believed he was conversing with a 15-year-old boy, and it rejected his assertion that it was all some sort of role play fantasy with another adult male. The content of the exchange simply belied such an explanation.
50. The Panel therefore found Particular 1 proved.

Decision on Statutory Ground

51. The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved amounted to misconduct. In so doing it took into account all the evidence and the submissions made by Ms Reid. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 3 - Misconduct made out

52. The Panel were satisfied that the Registrant had attempted to groom what he believed to be a 15-year-old boy, with a view to meeting up and having some sort of sexual liaison. In the Panel’s view this was extremely serious. It fell short of the standard of behaviour expected from a Paramedic. It clearly brought discredit upon the Registrant, the profession and the Regulator, for one of its registrants to act in this way. Notwithstanding the fact that this behaviour took place within the Registrant’s private life, the Panel was in no doubt that other members of the profession and indeed the public would find this behaviour deplorable. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour amounted to misconduct.
53. In reaching this decision the Panel found there to be a breach to the 2016 Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics applicable to all HCPC registrants, namely:
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.

Impairment

54. Having found the statutory ground of misconduct to be well founded, the Panel went on to consider whether the Registrant’s current fitness to practise was impaired as a result of that misconduct. In doing so it took into account the submissions made by Ms Reid and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

Particular 4 - current impairment found

55. The Panel found proved the allegation that the Registrant engaged in sexually motivated communication via an online platform with a person who was posing as a 15-year-old child and, significantly, that the Registrant believed that person to be a 15-year-old child. The Panel was also of the view that the Registrant had a clear intention to meet up with the person he believed to be a 15-year-old child and to conduct a sexual liaison with them. The Panel considered the Registrants behaviour amounted to grooming a child for sexual gratification.
56. The Registrant has denied this to be the case and has shown no insight into his behaviour or this type of behaviour, given he denied it. This sexually motivated behaviour is suggestive of a deep-seated attitudinal issue, which may be difficult to remediate and there was no evidence of any attempt to remediate. In all the circumstances, the Panel considered there to be a real risk that the Registrant would repeat his behaviour, particularly for so long as he remained in denial. The Panel was particularly aware that a Paramedic could have access to vulnerable children when acting in a solo role and this was a cause of great concern. Paramedics are expected to act with decency, honesty and integrity.
57. The Panel considered that three of the four criteria identified by Dame Janet Smith in the 5th Shipman Report were engaged in this case. The actions of the Registrant had the potential to place vulnerable children at real risk of harm and the risk of repetition means that he is liable to place children at unwarranted risk of harm in the future. His conduct has undoubtedly brought his profession into disrepute and, with no insight or remediation, the Panel was of the view that he was liable to do so again in the future. The Panel had identified that the Registrant has breached a core requirement of all registrants, namely to ensure their conduct justifies the public trust and confidence in him and the profession of Paramedics and finds that this amounts to a breach of a fundamental tenet of the profession. There remains a risk of repetition in the future. The Panel therefore found the Registrant’s fitness to practise currently impaired on the grounds of public protection.
58. The Panel went on to consider whether this was the type of case that required a finding of impairment on public interest grounds in order to maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator. The Panel was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public, who was aware of all the background to this case, would have their confidence in the profession and the Regulator significantly undermined if a finding of impairment were not made, given the nature and seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct.
59. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired both on public protection and public interest grounds and that the allegation of impairment is well founded.

Sanction

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

• the attempt to sexually groom a child
• complete absence of insight and/or remorse
• absence of remediation

62. The Panel considered the following mitigating factors:

• this is the first time that the Registrant has been subject to proceedings before the HCPC
• no actual person was harmed

63. In the absence of the Registrant the Panel had no evidence before it of any other mitigating factors.
64. The Panel noted that paragraph 79 the SP states: “Sexual abuse of children, whether physical or online, is intolerable, seriously damages public safety and undermines public confidence in the profession. Any professional found to have participated in sexual abuse of children in any capacity should not be allowed to remain in unrestricted practice.” The Panel noted that no actual child was sexually abused because L was a decoy, but the Panel found that the Registrant had attempted to do so and accordingly this paragraph was relevant to its determination on the appropriate sanction.
65. The Panel approached the ladder of sanction, beginning with the least restrictive sanction. In light of the seriousness of the conduct, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case to take no further action or consider mediation, since neither would protect the public from the risks identified by the Panel or reflect the seriousness of the misconduct.
66. The Panel then considered whether to caution the Registrant. However, the Panel was firmly of the view that such a sanction would not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this case. The Panel was also of the view that public confidence in the profession, and the HCPC as its regulator, would be undermined if such behaviour were dealt with by way of a caution.
67. The Panel next considered whether to place conditions on the Registrant’s registration. The SP states that before imposing conditions a Panel should be satisfied that:

• the issues which the conditions seek to address are capable of correction;
• there is no persistent or general failure which would prevent the registrant from doing so;
• appropriate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;
• the registrant can be expected to comply with them; and
• a reviewing Panel will be able to determine whether those conditions have or are being met.

68. The Panel also noted from the SP that conditions will rarely be effective unless the Registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the issues they seek to address and can be trusted to make a determined effort to do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases:

• where the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process, lacks insight or denies any wrongdoing;
• where there are serious or persistent overall failings.

69. The Panel considered that acting in a sexually motivated way towards a child is not something easily addressed by way of conditions. Furthermore, the Registrant lacks insight and has denied any wrongdoing, so it could not be known if he was committed to resolve the issues the conditions would seek to address, or could be trusted to make a determined effort to do so. Even if it had been possible to formulate conditions, the Panel did not consider that a Conditions of Practise Order would adequately reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s misconduct in this case.
70. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The SP states that, “Suspension should be considered where the allegation is of a serious nature but unlikely to be repeated and, thus, striking off is not merited.” The Panel reminded itself of its earlier findings of a complete absence of insight, sexual motivation, the grooming of a person the Registrant believed to be a child and the real risk of repetition. Although a Suspension Order would provide protection to the public for its duration, the Panel was not satisfied that it would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession or the regulatory process, or to send a clear message to the profession at large that such behaviour would not be tolerated. The Panel determined that a Suspension Order would not be a sufficient sanction in the circumstances of this case.
71. The Panel therefore looked at the guidance in the SP on making a Striking Off Order in order to decide whether such an Order would be appropriate. The guidance states that, “Striking off is a sanction of last resort for serious, deliberate or reckless acts involving abuse of trust such as, sexual abuse, dishonesty or persistent failure.” It goes on to observe that “Striking off should be used where there is no other way to protect the public, for example, where there is a lack of insight, continuing problems or denial. A Registrant’s inability or unwillingness to resolve matters will suggest that a lower sanction may not be appropriate.” The Panel finds that this case is characterised by denial, serious and deliberate sexually motivated acts, a complete lack of insight and no remorse.
72. The SP goes on to suggest that a Striking Off Order may be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the allegation are such that any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect or undermine confidence in the profession. The Panel’s earlier finding in relation to the consideration of a Suspension Order identified that a lesser sanction would indeed be insufficient to represent these wider public interest issues in the specific circumstances of this case.
73. The Panel concluded that, in light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the lack of insight and remediation, leaving a real risk that the behaviour would be repeated, the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking Off Order. The Panel took into account the impact this would have upon the Registrant, but concluded that the need to protect the public outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public.
74. Accordingly, the Panel makes a Striking Off Order and directs the Registrar to erase Richard Dodd’s name from the Register.

The Registrar is directed to erase Mr Richard J Dodd's name from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

75. In light of its decision to make a Striking Off Order the health matter automatically falls away and did not need to be considered further by the Panel.

Interim Order

76. The Panel heard submissions from Ms Reid on proceeding to hear an application for an Interim Order in the absence of the Registrant and also on the need for an Interim Order to cover the period during which an appeal may be made and, if one is made, whilst that appeal is in progress. The Registrant was not present and therefore the Panel had, in accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note, first to decide whether to proceed to consider the Interim Order application in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
77. The Panel decided that it was appropriate to consider the Interim Order application in the absence of the Registrant. In reaching this conclusion the Panel took into account the contents of the Notice of Hearing sent to the Registrant on 26 November 2021, where it is stated under the heading “Interim Orders”, “Please note that if the Panel finds the case against you is well founded and imposes a sanction which removes, suspends or restricts your right to practise, it may also impose an interim order on you (under Article 31 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001). An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect.” The Panel was satisfied this meant the Registrant was on notice that this was a possible outcome at this hearing.
78. The Panel remained satisfied that the Registrant had waived his right to be present at the hearing by his clear indication that he would not be attending the hearing. The Panel could see no reason to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the Registrant to participate on a later date because there was no indication that he would do so on any other occasion. The Panel took into account the fact that it had identified there to be a continuing risk to the public if the Registrant were allowed to practise without restriction and decided it was clearly in the public interest to consider the Interim Order application today, even if that meant it was conducted in the absence of the Registrant.
79. The Registrant has been found to have engaged in sexually motivated communication via an online platform with Person A who posed as a 15-year-old child, and whom he believed to be a 15-year-old child. This was most serious behaviour and the Panel had identified an ongoing risk to the public. Although the Registrant had indicated that he had retired from being a Paramedic, he had also kept his registration open in case he decided to return to the profession. The Panel therefore concluded that an Interim Order was necessary to protect the public from the risks it had identified during the 28-day appeal period, or the time taken to conduct any appeal, in the event that one is made.
80. The Panel is also of the view that, given the nature and seriousness of the misconduct in this case, public confidence in the regulatory process would be undermined if the Registrant were allowed to remain in practice on an unrestricted basis during any appeal period. The Panel therefore determined that an Interim Order is otherwise in the public interest.
81. The Panel first considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be sufficient. However, for the same reasons as dealt with at the sanction stage, the Panel concluded that conditions would not be appropriate or proportionate in this case.
82. The Panel therefore decided to make an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. The Panel decided that this Interim Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months to allow sufficient time for an appeal to be made. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Richard J Dodd