Mr John Young

Preliminary Matters

1. The Health and Care Professions Council (“HCPC”) was represented by Ms Maryam Khorassani, HCPC. The Registrant was not present or represented.

Service of Notice

2. The Panel had sight of the Notice of today’s hearing which was emailed on 24 May 2022 to the Registrant’s email address on the HCPC’s Register. The Panel also had sight of confirmation that the email was delivered to that email address on the same date. That Notice set out the date, time and nature of today’s hearing and invited the Registrant to attend. The Panel was therefore satisfied that service had been effected in terms of the rules.

Proceeding in Absence

3. Ms Khorassani, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. Ms Khorassani submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself, reminding the Panel that he had not sought an adjournment. She submitted that it would be fair, proportionate and in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence.

4. The Panel considered the application, having accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and having had regard to the HCPTS Practice note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant. The Panel agreed to grant the application as it was satisfied that it was in the public interest to proceed as the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself. In reaching this decision, the Panel noted that this was a mandatory review, the Registrant did not attend the substantive hearing, there had been no engagement since that hearing and that it was unlikely that an adjournment would secure his attendance at a future date.

Background

5. The Registrant was employed by the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) as a Registered Paramedic from 2017 until 1 September 2019.

6. In 2017, Person A, who also worked for the SAS, was made aware that Person B had raised a concern about the Registrant’s practice. This resulted in an internal investigation. The matter was the subject of a referral to the HCPC by SAS, but when the case went to the Investigating Committee Panel (ICP), no case to answer was found in June 2019.

7. On 18 November 2019, Person A is said to have received a message from the Registrant on Facebook Messenger, which is the subject of the HCPC Allegation (“the message”). Person A submitted a referral to the HCPC on 29 November 2019.

8. On 28 and 29 June 2021, a Panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee considered the following allegation:

As a registered Paramedic (PA39109) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct in that:

1. On 18 November 2019, you sent to Person A, a message as set out in Schedule A.

2. The matter set out in paragraph 1 constitutes misconduct.

3. By reason of your misconduct, your fitness to practise is impaired.

Schedule A:

“You know who I am and why I'm messaging. Just wanted to wait until id left the service before sending this. However I just wanted to say that you and your magic suggestions to Person B colleague who made the complaint) are exactly whats wrong with the SAS. Useless grassing bastards that cant cope with the pressures of patient management or how to deal with their own stress to manage a situation in a systematic order. I certainly never had to datix myself for the management of a fucking bread and butter condition to a paramedic [laughing emoji face] You are pathetic mate and other folk like you are the reason the job will be perma fucked within 5 years. Dont even bother replying to this unless its for a face to face meet up. You absolute wanker!"

9. On 29 June 2022, the Panel found the facts proved and found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his misconduct. That Panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of twelve months.

Today’s Hearing

10. The Panel today is conducting a review of that Suspension Order in terms of Article 30(1) of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.

11. The Panel heard from Ms Khorassani who referred to the background of the case and the circumstances which led to the imposition of the Suspension Order. Ms Khorassani invited the Panel to apply its discretion to determine if the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired on both the personal and public components. Ms Khorassani also drew the Panel’s attention to the Registrant’s lack of engagement since the substantive hearing and submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that he had taken the necessary steps to demonstrate that he was no longer impaired. Ms Khorassani submitted that the HCPC was of the view that a further suspension for a period of twelve months would be appropriate and would allow the Registrant a further opportunity to engage with the proceedings.

Decision

12. The Panel is mindful that its task today is not to go behind the decision of the previous panel but to determine whether or not the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired and if there is current impairment, what, if any, order should be made when the current order expires. The Panel has considered the submissions of Ms Khorassani and the Registrant together with the advice of the Legal Assessor. In reaching its decision, the Panel has exercised its own independent judgement.

13. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. In reaching this decision, the Panel has considered both the personal component and the public component. The previous Panel found no evidence of any insight into the misconduct found proved, why it was inappropriate, and what could be done to avoid it in the future. That Panel also found that there was no evidence of reflection upon the misconduct, or any other attempt to remediate his misconduct. There has been no change to this position, in light of the lack of engagement by the Registrant.

14. The Panel has also considered the wider public interest considerations which include the need to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession. In the absence of evidence of remediation, remorse or insight, the Panel has concluded that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in these circumstances.

15. The Panel has therefore concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired on both the personal and public components.

16. The Panel next considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of severity. The Panel is aware that the primary function of any sanction is to address public safety from the perspective of the risk the Registrant may pose to those using or needing his services in the future and determine what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

17. The Panel considered that to impose a Caution Order would not be sufficient to address the wider public interest considerations or to protect the public, given the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the Registrant has addressed the concerns identified by the previous Panel. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would be an appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Panel considers that as it has no information as to the Registrant’s current employment and no evidence that the Registrant would be able or willing to comply with any conditions it could impose, it would not be appropriate in these circumstances.

18. The Panel next considered extending the current Suspension Order. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s conduct was an isolated incident and was remediable. The Panel therefore considered that it would be appropriate to extend the current Order to allow the Registrant an opportunity to engage with these proceedings and to attend a future review hearing. The Panel is firmly of the view that a future reviewing panel would be greatly assisted by the Registrant’s attendance and engagement. The Panel is agreed that a period of four months from the expiry of the current Order would be sufficient to allow the Registrant to consider his position and to actively engage with these proceedings.

19. The Panel also considered a Striking Off Order and concluded that it would be wholly disproportionate in the circumstances of this case at the present time.

20. The Panel was of the view that a future Panel would be greatly assisted by the Registrant’s attendance at the next review hearing, whether in person or remotely and by a recent reflective statement written by the Registrant demonstrating an understanding of why the message should not have been sent, and an understanding of its impact on Person A, and the wider public interest.

ORDER: The Panel directs that current Suspension Order is extended by a period of four months from its expiry in terms of article 30(1)(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001.

This order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 27 November 2022.

History of Hearings for Mr John Young