Bleddyn Wyn Harris

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel had sight of an email dated 10 June 2022, sent to the Registrant at his registered email address, giving notice of today’s hearing. There was notification that the email had been delivered. The email notified the Registrant of the hearing time, the date and that it would be conducted by video conference. Information was included about how the Registrant could join the video conference, if he wished to do so, and the Panel’s power to proceed in his absence in the event that he did not participate.
2. The Panel was thus satisfied that service had been complied with in accordance with the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Panel) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (as amended due to the Covid 19 Pandemic).

Proceeding in absence

3. The Registrant did not attend the hearing and Ms Simpeh made an application to proceed in his absence.
4. 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 the 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.
5. The Panel took into account the content of the notice of hearing sent to the Registrant, which included information about how he could apply for an adjournment, should he wish to do so, and the Panel’s power to proceed in his absence, in the event that he did not attend. The Registrant had not responded to that notice, nor had he requested an adjournment.
6. The Panel was also provided with a schedule of correspondence and attempted telephone contact with the Registrant between February 2022 (after he was released from prison) and 1 July 2022. There had been ten separate attempts by the HCPC during that time to contact the Registrant and to encourage him to engage with these proceedings. He had not responded to any of the emails sent to him, nor had he answered the telephone or voicemails when called.
7. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly notified of this hearing and that he should be aware of the date it was due to take place. The Panel noted that the Registrant was handed documents about the investigation in May 2021, whilst in prison, and was thus aware that he was under investigation. He had not provided any change of email address and the emails sent were being delivered. By not responding to the notice of the hearing, telephone calls, or any of the correspondence sent to him by the HCPC, the Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had deliberately and voluntarily waived his right to be present and his right to be represented at this hearing. The Panel noted that the Registrant faced serious allegations and there was a clear public interest in the matter being dealt with expeditiously. The Panel considered an adjournment would serve no useful purpose and the Registrant had not requested one.
8. 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.

Application for part of the hearing to be in private

9. Ms Simpeh made an application for part of the hearing to be conducted in private when dealing with matters relating to the health of the Registrant.
10. The Panel considered the application with care and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was aware that whilst ordinarily these hearings are conducted in public, so that the public are aware of the functions being carried out by the Regulator, the Rules do allow for the hearing to be heard in private when reference is made to health matters. The Panel therefore allowed the application and when matters relating to the health of the Registrant were raised they would be heard in private in order to protect the private life of the Registrant.

Background

11. The Registrant is registered as a Paramedic with the HCPC and was employed at the Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust (‘the Trust’). He had been employed by the Trust since 7 November 2011.
12. On 28 January 2019, the HCPC received a referral from the Trust detailing that the Registrant was under Police investigation for domestic violence.
13. On 8 September 2020, the Health and Care Professions Council received an email from Heddlu Dyfed-Powys Police confirming that the Registrant had been charged with domestic assault against his partner where the Registrant was alleged to have caused actual bodily harm by beating and stabbing.
14. On 25 November 2020, at Mold Crown Court, the Registrant was convicted, following guilty pleas, of assault by beating on two occasions and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Registrant was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment and is subject to a restraining order lasting 10 years. He was released from prison sometime before February 2022 and is currently on licence until 2023.

Sentencing in the Crown Court

15. In addressing the Court on the day of sentence, the Registrant’s barrister said:

I ask the Court to consider it because we have here a man who has not committed any offences until he’s 40 years of age, he’s then committed a number of offences during what was clearly a very turbulent relationship with this lady and it’s interesting also that the moment, and I know this has been referred to effectively by herself, the moment that he realised that she was bleeding (inaudible) he changed immediately and he started treating her, went into paramedic mode, started to look after her and immediately all that trauma died down and he started behaving in a different way. So he’s allowed his, basically, he’s worked for several years as a paramedic he will have done a great deal of good during that time and been very helpful to a number of people but he’s got this side to his character with which he needs some help it seems to me.”

16. In passing sentence, the Learned Judge said:

“You are to be sentenced for offences that relate to control, bullying, humiliation and serious violence involving weapons.

On three occasions over a period of one month you violently attacked your partner, that violence escalating on each occasion. Beginning with repeatedly punching her to the head after you had already drawn blood by taunting her, prodding her in the mouth, you moved on to putting her in fear of her life when you put a knife against her throat threatening to cut her. She thought she might die.

And then on 29 June in a sustained assault you repeatedly kicked her. She describes the manner being how a footballer would repeatedly approach a ball before kicking it full force. You dragged her to another room where you cut her with a knife effectively stabbing her to the chest causing a small wound, but nevertheless a gaping wound caused by a knife. They were the acts of a man entirely out of control and not unusually, it has to be said, but it appears that you have very little insight into your aggression. Your victim was too terrified even to seek hospital treatment.

We are given guidelines to assist us in sentencing these matters. We have to consider two things. Your culpability or blame and the level of harm and in all three cases, because of the repeated assaults and the sustained attack, the use of weapons, they fall into the most serious category, Category 1. That, for the more serious offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, gives a starting point for sentence of 18 months with a range of sentence of 1 to 3 years. And in respect of the two offences of common assault, a range of sentence between a low level Community Order and 6 months in custody.

I give you 20% credit for pleading guilty after the trial date was fixed. I take into account the fact that prior to these matters you were a man who had no previous convictions. You have a good work ethic. You have lived an industrious life, you are well educated. I bear in mind everything I have heard urged on your behalf. I bear in mind the national Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that that makes serving custodial sentences more onerous than would otherwise be the case. But these are very serious matters. I bear in mind the principle of totality but these were three separate incidents.

The sentence in respect of the Section 47 assault is 2 years in custody. The sentence in respect of each of the common assaults is 3 months in custody. That 6 months being consecutive to the 2 years making a total sentence of 2 years and 6 months. You will have to serve one half of that sentence after which you will be released as supervised on licence. I am going to make a Restraining Order for a period of 10 years. It is very straightforward you are not to approach or communicate by any means, directly or indirectly, with [Person A] You are not to enter onto the grounds of the dwelling or any other buildings at [redacted] and you’re not to enter any data or photograph or cause or permit any data or photograph to be entered on any electronic device or any social media or internet network that relates to or purports to relate to [Person A].”

Decision on Facts

17. In reaching its decisions on the facts the Panel took into account all the documents relied on, together with the submissions made by Ms Simpeh on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel also heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred to Article 22(1)(a)(iii) of the Health Care Professions Order 2001, which states:

22.—(1) This article applies where any allegation is made against a registrant to the effect that—
(a) his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of—
(i) …
(ii) …
(iii) a conviction or caution in the United Kingdom for a criminal offence, or a conviction elsewhere for an offence which, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute a criminal offence.

18. The Legal Assessor also referred the Panel to Rule 10(1)(d) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which states:

“Where the registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction (or, in Scotland, an extract conviction) shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based.”

19. The Panel was satisfied, therefore, that Allegations 1a, 1b and 1c were proved by virtue of the Certificate of Conviction issued by the Crown Court at Mold on 31 December 2020.

20. Accordingly, the Panel found the facts as set out in Allegation 1 proved.

21. Miss Simpeh did not ask the Panel to make any findings in relation to the health matters until such time as the conviction matter had been dealt with.

Decision on Grounds

22. The Panel next considered the statutory ground. Because this is a conviction case, and the Panel had been provided with the Certificate of Conviction, the Panel found the statutory ground to be made out.

Decision on Impairment

23. Having found the statutory ground of conviction 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 conviction. In doing so it took into account the submissions made by Ms Simpeh and all the documents provided. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
24. The Panel was of the view that by his conduct the Registrant had breached standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016), namely:

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

25. The Panel had been advised by the Legal Assessor that an important factor when considering current impairment is whether the conduct which led to the allegation is remediable, that it has been remedied and that it is highly unlikely to be repeated. Also, the level of insight shown by the Registrant is an important factor when considering current impairment. The Registrant had not attended nor had he provided any evidence of remediation or an understanding of the impact of his behaviour both on the victim, the profession and the HCPC as its Regulator. He had initially denied the matters alleged but did then go on to make admissions in the Crown Court, demonstrating some insight into his behaviour. The Panel, however, had in mind the Judge’s sentencing remarks as detailed above.
26. Offences of domestic assault are extremely serious. The Panel considered that where a man is prepared to beat and stab a woman with a knife, whatever the circumstances, he represents a risk to the public. It is clear that his victim went through a terrifying ordeal on more than one occasion and believed she was going to die. The Registrant has not engaged with this process and it is not known what real level of insight, if any, he has into his behaviour. Nor is there any evidence of remorse or remediation. That risk, therefore, remains ongoing. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise as a Paramedic was at the time, and remained, impaired on public protection grounds.
27. 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 and to uphold professional standards. 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 undermined if a finding of impairment were not made. The Panel considered that a member of the public would be extremely concerned if the Regulator took no action in a case where a Paramedic had repeatedly assaulted his partner in the violent ways referred to above, including the use of a knife to cause injury. There was clearly a need to send out a message to the profession that this sort of behaviour is wholly unacceptable and not to be tolerated.
28. The Panel also noted that the Registrant has yet to complete the licence period of his prison sentence from the Mold Crown Court and that, in accordance with the principle enunciated in the case of The Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals v (1) General Dental Council (2) Alexander Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin), he should not be permitted to resume his practice until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence, which will not be until 2023.
29. The Panel therefore determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired on public protection and public interest grounds and that the allegation of impairment is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

30. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Panel took into account the submissions made by Ms Simpeh, together with all the written evidence and relevant mitigation. The Panel also referred to the guidance issued by the Council in its Indicative Sanctions Policy (“ISP”). 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.
31. The Panel considered the aggravating factors in this case to be: repeated and escalating acts of violence against a female partner resulting in injuries, including a stab wound; behaviour that actively undermined the profession; limited insight; no expressions of remorse or apology; no evidence of any remediation; a risk of repetition, as demonstrated by the 10 year restraining order; a failure to engage with his Regulator in both the investigation of this matter and the hearing of the case.
32. The Panel considered the following mitigating factors; no previous disciplinary matters with the HCPC; eventual admissions in the Crown Court.
33. In light of the serious and violent nature of the offences, the Panel did not consider this was an appropriate case in which to take no further action.
34. The Panel next considered whether a Caution Order would adequately reflect the seriousness of the conviction. The Panel’s role as indicated by the ISP was not to punish the Registrant twice for the same offence, but to protect the public and maintain high standards among registrants and public confidence in the profession. The Panel did not consider that such an Order would adequately mark the seriousness of the behaviour or protect the public.
35. The Panel did not consider that this was a case where Conditions of Practice would be appropriate because of the nature of the Registrant’s conduct. This was not a case where his clinical competence was in question. Given the nature and seriousness of the criminal offences the Panel did not consider it possible to formulate practicable or verifiable conditions that would be appropriate or sufficient to protect the public. Furthermore, for conditions to be workable the Registrant would need to have engaged with the process and demonstrated a willingness to comply with conditions. The Panel considered Conditions of Practice would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour, nor would they comply with the principle laid down in the case of Fleischmann, referred to above and captured in paragraph 82 of the ISP, namely:

"Where a registrant has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, and is still serving a sentence at the time the matter comes before a panel, normally the panel should not allow the registrant to resume unrestricted practice until that sentence has been satisfactorily completed.”

36. For all these reasons the Panel did not consider conditions would be an appropriate or proportionate sanction in this case.
37. The Panel next considered whether to make a Suspension Order. The ISP 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 the nature of the conviction, namely repeated acts of escalating violence directed at his partner, including punching, kicking and the use of a knife to inflict injury. A Suspension Order would provide protection to the public for its duration. However, in the absence of any information from the Registrant about remediation, the lack of insight and the real risk of repetition, the Panel decided that suspension was not appropriate. In addition, 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 all the circumstances of this case.
38. The Panel therefore looked at the guidance in the ISP 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, inter alia, criminal convictions for serious offences and violence.” The guidance also states that:

“Registrants have a duty to ensure that their conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in them and their profession (see standard 9.1 of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics). Where a registrant has exhibited violent behaviour, this is highly likely to affect the public’s confidence in their profession and pose a risk to the public. In these cases, a more serious sanction may be warranted.”

39. The ISP 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 and public confidence in the regulatory process, in particular where the Registrant lacks insight. 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.
40. The Panel finds that this case is characterised by appalling acts of violence directed at his partner that were repeated and escalated to the extent that a knife was used and the victim feared for her life. This was not an isolated incident but rather a sustained pattern of violence and controlling behaviour and represents conduct falling far below the standard expected of a Paramedic registered with the HCPC.
41. The Panel concluded that, in light of the seriousness of the behaviour and the limited insight and absence of remediation there is a real risk that the behaviour would be repeated. Therefore, the only appropriate sanction in this case was to make a Striking-Off Order. The Panel considered that carrying out repeated acts of severe violence against his partner was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered Paramedic. The Panel took into account the impact this might have upon the Registrant, but concluded that the need to protect the public and the public interest outweighed his interests and that no other sanction would adequately protect the public, which included the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession.
42. Accordingly, the Panel makes a Striking-Off Order and directs the Registrar to erase Bleddyn Wyn Harris’ name from the Register.

Order: The Registrar is directed to erase Bleddyn Wyn Harris’ name from the Register.

Particular 2:
43. Following its decision on sanction. Ms Simpeh indicated that the HCPC would be taking no further action in relation to the health matter and that it would be left to lie on the file in the event that the Registrant were to subsequently apply to return to the Register.

Interim Order:

44. Following the Panel's decision on sanction, Ms Simpeh made an application 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 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.
45. 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 10 June 2022, 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.
46. The Panel remained satisfied that the Registrant had waived his right to be present at the hearing by his lack of engagement, notwithstanding the extensive efforts the HCPC had made to encourage him to engage. The Panel could see no reason to adjourn the hearing in order to allow the Registrant to attend on a later date because there was no indication that he would attend 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.
47. The Panel has found that the Registrant repeatedly and violently assaulted his partner, including with the use of a knife. The Panel has already concluded that the Registrant represents a continuing risk to the public because there remains a concern that he could repeat the behaviour in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, particularly given his limited insight and lack of remediation. 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.
48. The Panel is also of the view that, given the nature and seriousness of the offences 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.
49. 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.
50. The Panel therefore decided to make 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 upon: (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. The Interim Order will be for a maximum period of 18 months to allow sufficient time for an appeal to be dealt with, in the event that the Registrant decides to appeal.
51. That concludes this hearing for today.

History of Hearings for Bleddyn Wyn Harris