Mr Jonathan Moyes
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 tsteam@hcpts-uk.org or +44 (0)808 164 3084 if you require any further information.
Allegation
As a registered Paramedic (PA41531) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason
of misconduct. In that:
1. On 16 February 2018 you inappropriately demonstrated the use of your stethoscope on Colleague A, in that you moved the stethoscope onto Colleague A’s left breast and pressed it on her left breast for approximately 10-30 seconds;
2. On 19 January 2019 you pushed your hands down the back of Colleague B’s
trousers, and/or grabbed the back of Colleague B’s trousers and/or her
underwear resulting in a ‘wedgie’;
3. On 16 June 2019 you poked and/or smacked Colleague F on the back of the
head and said “come on fatty” or words to that effect;
4. On 16 June 2019 you said to Colleague F “I would rather have my old crew
member back as she was a good girl” or words to that effect;
5. On numerous occasions you pushed Colleague F
6. On 16 June 2019 you said to Colleague F that “I am going to punish you for
your attitude by putting you over my knee and spanking you” or words to that
effect;
7. On 16 June 2019 you threw a boot cleaning brush at Colleague F which hit
her on her left buttock and threatened to throw it at her again;
8. On 19 June 2019 you saw a photo of Colleague F and said “you’re quite
shaggable” or words to that effect.
9. On 8 June 2019 you told Colleague F that her horse needed to go to a glue
factory, or words to that effect.
10. In June 2019 told a patient that Colleague F was a terrible driver and/or is
only good for paperwork, or words to that effect.
11.Your conduct in relation to allegations 1, and/or 2, and/or 6 and/or 8 was
sexually motivated.
12.The matters set out in allegation 1-11 above constitutes misconduct.
13.By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired
Finding
Preliminary Matters:
Service
1. The Panel noted that written notice of these proceedings was sent to the Registrant at his last known registered email address on 17 June 2022. The Panel was shown documents which established both the fact of the service and the identity of the Registrant’s registered email address. The Notice of Hearing email letter contained the date and the nature of the hearing and the manner in which it would be conducted; namely, remotely by electronic means. In these circumstances the Panel accepted that proper service of the notice had been effected, according to Rules 3 and 6(2) of the HCPC (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules), which refers to the method, contents and timing of the Notice of Hearing and Rule 3 of the Health and Care Professions Council (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2021, amending the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which allows for the service of documents via electronic mail. These include that the Notice of Hearing must be sent no later than 28 days before the hearing.
Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant
2. In reaching its decision, the Panel took into account the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant and it accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice.
3. It was submitted by Mr D’Alton that the Panel should proceed in the absence of the Registrant, notice having been provided of the hearing in accordance with the Rules. The HCPC had also made efforts to contact the Registrant and check whether he wished to attend. An email to the Registrant dated 7 July 2022 sought to engage with the Registrant, who had not previously responded. He responded on 14 July 2022 by email stating that he would be unable to attend the hearing due to “work commitments” and sending his documentation, comprising an undated Reflective Statement and a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) document dated 13 July 2022. The Registrant also sent another email dated 14 July 2022, confirming that he was “happy for the hearing to go ahead in my absence.”
4. The Panel determined that this hearing should proceed in the absence of the Registrant.
5. The reasons were as follows:
i) The Registrant had been put on notice of the date and nature of this hearing by an email sent to his registered address;
ii) This hearing is a mandatory review, with little time remaining before the sanction expires;
iii) The Registrant stated expressly in his 14 July 2022 email that he was happy for the hearing to proceed in his absence;
iv) The Registrant has not requested an adjournment;
v) The Registrant has been provided with the opportunity to attend, to make representations, or to be represented, and has sent written documentation for the Panel to consider;
vi) There would be no purpose served in adjourning, as any adjournment was unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance for this hearing at an adjourned date, as he had not attended on the last occasion at his substantive hearing;
vii) It was in the public interest, that the matter be dealt with expeditiously.
6. The Panel determined that the Registrant has voluntarily absented himself. Therefore, the Panel concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the hearing should proceed today, notwithstanding the absence of the Registrant on the grounds of public protection and in the wider public interest.
Background:
7. The Registrant is a Paramedic who was employed by South East Coast Ambulance NHS Trust, (“the Trust”). On 16 February 2018 it was alleged that the Registrant inappropriately used a stethoscope on Colleague A. On 19 January 2019 the Registrant allegedly pushed his hands down the back of Colleague B’s trousers and pulled up her underwear and trousers, resulting in a “wedgie”. These incidents were referred to a Trust disciplinary hearing.
8. Other incidents of behaviour that allegedly caused distress to another colleague (Colleague F) emerged. These incidents emerged as a result of an internal investigation by the Trust.
9. On 8 July 2019 the Registrant self-referred to the HCPC, stating that he had been suspended under investigation for harassment and use of sexualised words, as well as for failing to follow Trust procedures. It was alleged that the Registrant smacked and/or poked and pushed Colleague F, and had used inappropriate and sexually suggestive language towards her.
10. The panel at the substantive hearing concluded as follows with respect to the Grounds, Impairment and Sanction:
“93. The Panel began its deliberations by assessing whether standards had been breached and the seriousness of these breaches. The conduct of the Registrant appears to have differed in respect of Colleague A and B and Colleague F. The touching which invaded the personal space of Colleagues A and B was not repeated with Colleague F in a similar way. However, the Trust Investigation made clear that what may have been intended as banter with Colleague F had a very negative impact on her at a time when she was struggling with her new job and had been affected by a patient incident which she considered traumatic.
94. The Panel considered the possible breaches of the HCPC’s Standards. With regard to the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, the following standards were breached:
i) that the registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired;
or
ii) that the registrant’s fitness to practise is not impaired.
6.1 You must take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of harm to service users, carers and colleagues as far as possible.
6.2 You must not do anything, or allow someone else to do anything, which could put the health or safety of a service user, carer or colleague at unacceptable risk.
9.1 You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust
and confidence in you and your profession.
95. Colleagues A and B were student paramedics who should have been nurtured. Particular 1 having been sexually motivated is a clear breach of standard 6. Particular 2 while not sexually motivated was clearly unwanted. This occurred in front of a patient and is inappropriate contact that brings the profession into disrepute. Particulars 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were considered to be both unacceptable and an unwanted course of conduct that caused distress to a colleague.
96. While the extent of the distress that Colleague F did experience may not have been something that the Registrant could envisage, particularly given that Colleague may have successfully employed strategies to stand up to the Registrant, it was not appropriate conduct towards a colleague. Colleague F did indicate that the Registrant “did not appear to understand that I was not happy with his behaviour” but simultaneously indicated that she had shared with him that she was struggling professionally following a traumatic incident, but he did not appear to take this into consideration in his treatment of her. The Registrant’s actions had a negative impact on Colleague F’s mental wellbeing.
97. The seriousness of each failing in Particulars 3-10 varies but there has been evidence from Mr Pattison that the Registrant, when interviewed, did appreciate with hindsight, that his conduct was capable of undermining the self-confidence of a colleague. Particulars 1 and 2 taken individually, and in the case of Colleague F, particulars 3-10 taken collectively amount to serious examples of a Registrant falling foul of the standards expected. This is the case irrespective of the intention behind the behaviour in Particulars 2-10, given its inherent nature. This is particularly so in the instance of Particulars 5 and 6 which involved sexual content inappropriate for a workplace even if not found to be sexually motivated.
Decision on Impairment:
98. The Panel next considered whether the established misconduct is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise. The Panel heeded the submission of the HCPC of the necessity to address both the personal and public components relevant to that consideration.
99. The breaches identified by the Panel’s findings are all of a type that are capable of being remedied. However, when the Panel considered whether they had in fact been remedied, the Panel had little information before it to conclude that this was the case.
100. Inappropriate and unwanted behaviour is something that the Registrant appears to regret. This is evidenced in part by a Reflective Piece from him, albeit it is scant in its content. While it identifies an on- line course that may be undertaken for remediation there is no evidence that this has been completed. Accordingly, there is a risk of repetition. The Panel also took into account that the misconduct related to three different colleagues spanning a significant period of time and that different kinds of unwanted behaviour were directed to each colleague.
101. The Registrant’s conduct carried with it a risk of harm to the mental wellbeing of the three complainants who have given evidence. That risk of harm graduated to actual harm in some instances. The impact on Colleague F and the emotional account she gave make this clear. Her enthusiasm for her work was eroded over time. Her mental wellbeing disintegrated to the point where she required medical intervention. It also caused harm to Colleagues A and B also who detailed the short and long term effects on them caused by the Registrant’s behaviour.
102. The absence of remediation had the consequence that the Panel was driven to conclude that if the Registrant were to be permitted to practice without restriction, there would be a substantial risk of repetition with the attendant risk of harm that flowed from the shortcomings identified by the Panel in respect of the three colleagues in this case. The Panel’s findings of fact, grounds and the risk of repetition, necessitate a finding that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.
103. In the judgement of the Panel a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise is also required with regard to the public component. So serious are the findings of the Panel that a finding of impairment is required in order to address the concern of fair-minded members of the public regarding a Paramedic who had acted as the Registrant did. Even if there were a negligible risk of repetition this would be the case, the fact that there is a significant risk of repetition makes that finding the more necessary. Furthermore, were the Panel not to make a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise it would fail in its duty to declare and uphold proper professional standards and to send a clear signal to other practitioners who might feel tempted to depart from the standards expected of them.
104. The consequence of the findings that the proven facts constitute misconduct currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise is that the Panel must proceed to consider the issue of sanction.
Decision on Sanction
105. In considering what sanction, if any, to impose, the Panel took into account the submissions of Mr Walters, who commended the Indicative Sanctions Policy to the Panel and indicated that given the findings to date, that the options of suspension and striking off were open to the Panel. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor……
……106. The Panel bore in mind that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant, even if this may have a punitive effect. The Panel identified a number of aggravating and mitigating features in this case, considering its earlier findings.
As aggravating factors, the Panel noted:
• The misconduct took place over a period of some 15 months;
• The misconduct involved three junior female colleagues;
• The misconduct involving the third colleague came after the complaints of Colleagues A and B had been brought to the Registrant’s attention, indicating that his behaviour was not acceptable;
• The misconduct caused the three colleagues varying degrees of harm, impacting their mental wellbeing;
• There is no evidence that the Registrant’s own action plan f or remediation has been implemented;
• There is only limited evidence of insight in a Reflective Statement; and
• There remains a risk of repetition.
• As mitigating factors, the Panel noted:
• The Registrant was described by Mr Pattison as “open and honest” when confronted with his behaviour by the Trust;
• The Registrant did appear to come to a realisation when confronted with his behaviour at an early stage in the investigation that his behaviour could cause harm;
• The Registrant did outline an Action Plan for remediation in his Reflective Statement;
• There was evidence that the Registrant had not intended to cause harm in most of his interactions.
• No Service Users were harmed or put at risk of harm;
• The Registrant is of previous good character and has no previous regulatory findings recorded against him in his ambulance career;
• The Registrant had been supported in his career to complete his Paramedic training by his employer who clearly valued him.
107. The Panel was concerned that given the limited evidence of the Registrant’s insight and remediation, there is a risk of repetition of the Registrant’s behaviour. In view of this, to take no further action, would not be appropriate and fails to address the risk to other colleagues and the public interest.
108. Similarly, imposing a caution order would be inappropriate given the Registrant’s failure to evidence sufficient insight or to demonstrate remedial action taken. The Registrant’s conduct has included words and behaviours of different types. While Colleague D described that some of these actions could be seen as banter in one context, the need to be aware of how these would be received and the environment in which they took place was not something that the Registrant appeared to factor in. Even in a high-pressured environment where life and death incidents occur, three different colleagues complained of the Registrant crossing professional boundaries. Accordingly, such an order would be insufficient to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and maintain confidence in the regulatory process.
109. The Panel went on to consider the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order and considered the same to be inappropriate given the limited information it has to date about the Registrant’s position. Without current information about the Registrant it determined that there are no verifiable, realistic or measurable conditions of practice that it could impose given its concerns regarding the Registrant’s limited insight, and the extent of his behaviour which captures words and actions of different kinds rather than an isolated incident that indicate a lack of respect for junior colleagues. In such circumstances, the Panel considered a Conditions of Practice Order impractical, given that it was unaware of whether the Registrant would be willing to comply with any conditions it did formulate. It would be difficult to formulate conditions that deal with an attitudinal issue and without evidence into insight and a willingness to change his attitude a Conditions of Practice Order is not appropriate.
110. The Panel next considered a Suspension Order, which would have the effect of protecting colleagues for the duration of the Suspension Order. Such an order would also protect the public interest as well as providing the Registrant with the opportunity f or remediation and demonstration of this. The Panel considered that the showing of some insight when confronted at interview was an encouraging sign. It considers that the indication points towards the misconduct being remediable albeit that this has not been remedied. Accordingly, the Panel considered this to be in the interests of the Registrant, in addition to meeting the public protection and public interest requirements. No lesser order was sufficient to meet the risks identified.
111. The Panel did not consider that a Striking-Off Order was appropriate given that it identified the Registrant’s early, albeit incomplete insight, as an indication that his misconduct, while unacceptable, was capable of being remediable.
112. In considering the length of the order, the Panel considered that a period of 12 months was appropriate. The time would give the Registrant the opportunity to address further insight and remediation and engage with his regulator. The Panel considered that anything less than a year would be insufficient when it was unaware of his current status. In addition, a Suspension Order for 12 months reflects the seriousness of the misconduct and will be a deterrent to other members of the profession.
113. The Panel did consider that a review before the end of the order would be helpful for a reviewing panel to consider the Registrant’s current position at that stage. It further considered what might be helpful to a reviewing panel and identified the following:
- Attendance at the review panel;
- Evidence of his developing insight;
- Evidence of his remediation;
- Evidence of working with a mentor;
- Evidence of any courses he attends to address his previous misconduct.”
11. This is the first review of the substantive decision made on 23 July 2021, under Article 30(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order). The sanction decision of the substantive hearing panel was a Suspension Order of one year’s duration, which expires on 20 August 2022.
The Panel’s decisions:
12. In reaching its decisions, the Panel took into consideration the documentation from the HCPC and from the Registrant in the form of his latest one page Reflective Statement, a screen shot of two CPD documents on Dementia Awareness and Equality, Diversity and Human Rights both awarded on 30 August 2021 and his previous Reflective Statement, which included his action plan at the time. The Panel also took into account the submission of Mr D’Alton, who submitted that the Registrant was still impaired and that the sanction should either be an extension of the existing Suspension Order or a Striking Off Order. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice and took into consideration the HCPTS’ Practice Note on Impairment and the HCPTS’ Sanctions Policy Guidance.
Impairment
13. The Panel concluded that, although much of the case found proved against the Registrant related to his attitudinal problems with vulnerable junior female members of staff, nevertheless, in agreement with the substantive panel, the Panel determined that the issues raised by this case, overall, were remediable.
14. However, the Panel noted that there was no additional information from the Registrant for today’s hearing that dealt, in full and robustly, with the issues highlighted by this case. The Registrant has not engaged to the extent of attending this hearing, despite the last panel’s recommendation to do so, indicating poor insight, in the Panel’s opinion. The Registrant’s reason for not attending were “work commitments” but there was no further information from him as to the reasons why he could not seek a readjustment to his working hours to attend this hearing, which would have been by remote platform, and thus, in principle, easier for him to attend.
15. The Panel was also concerned that the case against the Registrant that was found proved was serious and the sanction imposed was, rightly, towards the top end of the range of sanctions available. The Registrant’s case concerned sexual misconduct, harassment and inappropriate conduct towards three female junior colleagues over a period of 15 months, involving a breach of their trust in the Registrant and the Registrant’s inappropriate exercise of power over those junior colleagues. Yet the Registrant still chose not to attend today. Instead, he sent two documents for this hearing, a Reflective Statement and some CPD information, the latter of which only dealt with the bare minimum of the issues raised by this case.
16. In the Panel’s judgement, there was little or any developed insight on the Registrant’s part since last hearing and there was no evidence of full insight. In addition, and aggravating the situation today in the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant, either deliberately or through ignorance of the seriousness of this process and of his own position, provided no evidence, as recommended by the last panel, in particular, in relation to any remediation, working with a mentor or of any courses he might have attended to address his previous misconduct. The Panel was also concerned that the Registrant seemed not to have understood that his efforts at remediation would need to address his sexist and bullying attitudinal behaviour towards female colleagues in order to go to the root of the issues raised by this case.
17. To that end, the Panel concluded that the Reflective Statement that the Registrant provided for today’s hearing was of a poor and highly superficial standard. It failed to address the crux of the concept of remediation, which must include measures that will prevent repetition of the index behaviour in the future and deal with the root cause of the Registrant’s behaviour; for example, there was nothing to demonstrate that the Registrant had understood why he did what he did, the effect on his victims and the measures he would take to prevent recurrence in the future. The Panel concluded that this, together with the Registrant’s decision not to attend this hearing, demonstrated a woeful lack of insight on his part, that seemed not to have progressed from the substantive hearing period, when he had sent a brief Reflective Statement, with a five-line “action plan” and, also, when he had not attended that hearing either.
18. Added to this was the fact that the Restraint has had a year in which to address the issues raised by the case, and where, helpfully, he was pointed by the substantive hearing panel directly and clearly to what he would be required to do in order to commence his remediation and in order to help a reviewing panel in the future. This, the Registrant has almost entirely ignored. In the Panel’s judgement, he has not provided any development of demonstrable insight.
19. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that the risk of repetition by the Registrant of his misconduct is, and remains, high. Therefore, the Panel determined that there remains a high risk of harm to the health, safety and well being of the public. Furthermore, in the Panel’s judgement, and for the same reasons, an informed member of the public would be shocked to learn that the Registrant was not found impaired and was declared fit to practise today.
20. Therefore, the Panel determined that the Registrant is, and remains, impaired today on the grounds of public protection and in the wider public interest.
Sanction on Review
21. The Panel approached the disposal of this review on the basis of first taking the least serious outcomes and going up the range of outcomes available in ascending order.
22. The Panel considered and rejected the outcomes of taking no action and imposing a Caution Order, on the basis that none of these would offer the necessary restriction of practice and the monitoring of the Registrant in his case. The Registrant’s case comprised a serious abuse of power and trust by him, including sexual and inappropriate misconduct, towards junior female members of staff.
23. The Panel next considered replacing the existing Suspension Order with a Conditions of Practice Order after 20 August 2022 and rejected this. The Panel could find no conditions to formulate that would adequately deal with the matters found proved in this case at this time. The Panel also concluded that the absence of the Registrant from this hearing made the concept of a Conditions of Practice Order almost impossible to consider. He has not provided the Panel with any information about his future plans, his present working environment and how, and whether, he would adhere to and comply with any conditions of practice.
24. The Panel was also doubtful, on the present evidence before it, that the Registrant would comply with any conditions, as he has largely failed to meet the recommendations of the substantive panel for this hearing, and, in this Panel’s opinion, those suggestions were not onerous. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s overall attitude to his regulatory body’s fitness to practise process has been, and appears to remain, either deliberate or careless, bordering on reckless. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant is a member of a distinguished profession, regulated by a statutory body, the HCPC, and he should be aware that regulatory proceedings are serious and important to all concerned, not least to the public and the victims, as well as to himself.
25. The Panel next considered extending the existing Suspension Order for the maximum of one year under Article 30(1) (a) of the Order.
26. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s misconduct found proved was serious and involved the abuse of trust of vulnerable junior staff members and sexual misconduct and inappropriate behaviour that was, as yet, un-remediated. In the Panel’s judgement, this level of misconduct could easily attract a sanction at the higher end of the range of sanctions available. The Panel also has concluded that the Registrant has had a year to provide the reassurances required to enable a reviewing panel to conclude that he was a valued member of the profession who should be kept within it, rather than out of it, either temporarily or permanently. He has failed to provide that evidence.
27. The Panel concluded that, by the Registrant’s absence today, it has been unable to conclude whether this was a deliberate, careless, or even reckless, approach by him. It was clear to the Panel that the Registrant has not failed completely to engage with this process. Although he has not appeared at any hearing to date, despite a heavy hint that he should do so by the last panel, he has provided, on two occasions, a Reflective Statement and, latterly, a screenshot of mandatory CPD training, but that was not specifically aimed at the misconduct identified by this case.
28. To that end, although it was potentially possible to impose a Striking Off Order today, the Panel concluded that fairness demanded that the Registrant should be given what might be a last chance to rectify his position. In order to do this. The Registrant would need to read this determination very carefully and ascertain from it what would be required to draw him back from the ultimate sanction, but also taking into account that no future panel is bound by the decision of this Panel, of course.
29. The Panel concluded that a short extension to the existing Suspension Order would serve to provide the Registrant with another, and potentially last, chance to demonstrate remediation, whilst also representing protection for the public and also upholding the wider public interest, being public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process and in upholding the standards of the profession.
30. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a fair and proportionate outcome today would be to extend, from 20 August 2022, the existing Suspension Order for a short period of six (6) months, for the Registrant to comply with what is required to demonstrate that he is able to take his position forward, if that is what he wants to do.
31. In order to do this, the Panel suggests that the Registrant might wish to do and/or to provide the following to the next review panel:
• A new Reflective Statement, to include any comments he would wish to make in relation to any full, deep and robust insight he might have, and how he would reduce and/or remove any risk of repetition in the future of the matters relating to the misconduct found proved. Overall, to demonstrate that he has commenced remediation relevant to the misconduct found proved;
• Attendance at the next review hearing;
• Any support from others, by way of mentorship, for example:
- References and testimonials, where those testifying know of the matters found proved;
- Training in the aspects of the case that go to the root of the misconduct found proved.
32. The Panel considered that any documentation in support of the Registrant’s position should be sent by him to the HCPC in readiness for the next review hearing by no later than five (5) working days before the fixed date for the hearing, together with an indication as to whether to not the Registrant will be attending the hearing.
Order
Order: The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Jonathan Moyes for a further period of 6 months upon the expiry of the existing Order.
Notes
The Order imposed today will apply from 20 August 2022.
This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 20 February 2023.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Jonathan Moyes
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
26/01/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Struck off |
21/07/2022 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Review Hearing | Suspended |
19/07/2021 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Suspended |