John Young

Preliminary Matters

Service of Notice

1. The Panel had regard to the service documents and was satisfied that the Registrant had been properly served with Notice of today’s hearing by email dated 28 September 2022. Delivery of that email was confirmed on the same date.

Proceeding in Absence

2. Ms Welsh, on behalf of the HCPC, applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. She submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily absented himself and that no application had been made for an adjournment. She submitted that it would be fair, proportionate, and in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence.

3. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that today’s hearing is a mandatory review and must be heard before the expiry of the substantive Suspension Order on 27 November 2022. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not attended the original substantive hearing or the last review hearing. The Panel was informed that the Registrant had not engaged with the HCPC since the imposition of the Suspension Order at the substantive hearing. The Panel considered that an adjournment would be unlikely to secure the Registrant’s attendance at a future date and that no useful purpose would be served by an adjournment. In all the circumstances, the Panel decided that it was fair and in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant.

Background

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

5. 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 the SAS, but when the case went to the Investigating Committee Panel (ICP), no case to answer was found in June 2019.

6. 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.

7. On 28-29 June 2021, a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee considered the allegation referred to above at a substantive hearing. The panel found the facts proved and that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of his misconduct. That panel imposed a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months.

8. The first substantive review hearing took place on 23 June 2022. The Registrant did not attend that hearing or provide the panel with any submissions or information about his future intentions with regard to practising as a Paramedic. In the circumstances, that panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, and stated as follows:

“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.

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.

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

9. The panel at the first review hearing decided to impose a further Suspension Order for a period of four months on the expiry of the original 12-month Suspension Order. In reaching its decision, the panel noted that the Registrant’s conduct was an isolated incident and was remediable. The panel considered an extension of the Suspension Order by four months would give the Registrant sufficient opportunity to consider his position and engage with the HCPC. The panel recommended that the Registrant should provide a recent reflective statement to demonstrate an understanding of why his message to Person A should not have been sent and an understanding of its impact on Person A and the wider public interest. The panel also stated its view that a future reviewing panel would be greatly assisted by the Registrant’s attendance at the next review hearing.

Submissions

10. Ms Welsh, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that, in the absence of any engagement by the Registrant in these proceedings since the last review, the Panel must inevitably conclude that his fitness to practise remains impaired. She submitted that the Registrant had shown no insight, remorse, reflection, or remediation and therefore his practice remains impaired having regard to the “personal” element of fitness to practise. She also submitted that he had shown no understanding of the negative impact of his misconduct on the reputation of the profession. Accordingly, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if there were no finding of current impairment.

11. With regard to sanction, Ms Welsh referred the Panel to the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and, in particular, those paragraphs relating to the imposition of a Striking Off Order. Ms Welsh submitted that, given the Registrant’s continued lack of engagement in these proceedings, he had shown a lack of insight and an unwillingness to resolve matters. She submitted that any lesser sanction than a Striking Off Order at this stage would be insufficient to protect public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

Decision

12. The Panel first considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. The Panel took into account the previous decisions of the panel at the substantive hearing and the panel at the first review hearing. The Panel took account of the submissions of Ms Welsh on behalf of the HCPC. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Notes “Review of Article 30 Sanction Orders” and “Fitness to Practise Impairment” and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

13. The Panel noted that the Registrant was under a persuasive burden to demonstrate that he had addressed the fitness to practise concerns identified at the substantive hearing. In the absence of any engagement by the Registrant in these proceedings since the substantive hearing, the Panel today had no alternative but to conclude that his fitness to practise remains impaired.

14. With regard to sanction, the Panel took into account the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel gave appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness.

15. The Panel considered that taking no further action or a Caution Order would not be sufficient to address the wider public interest considerations or to protect the public, given the lack of evidence that the Registrant has addressed the concerns identified by the previous panels.

16. The Panel considered that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate, given that the Registrant’s misconduct and lack of willingness to engage in these proceedings does not relate to his competence as a Paramedic but appears to be attitudinal in nature. There was no evidence that the Registrant would be able or willing to comply with any conditions it might impose.

17. The Panel next considered extending the current Suspension Order. The panel at the previous review hearing had extended the Suspension Order to give the Registrant a further opportunity to engage in the proceedings and address the findings that his fitness to practise was impaired. They had also made clear to the Registrant what he needed to do to prepare for, and participate in, this subsequent review hearing. The Registrant had failed to take the opportunity provided to him.

18. The Panel today considered that no useful purpose would be served by further extending the Suspension Order. The Panel had regard to the HCPC Sanctions Policy and, in particular, that a Striking Off Order may be appropriate where a registrant lack insight and/or is unwilling to resolve matters. It concluded from the Registrant’s total lack of engagement that he is not willing to address the findings that his fitness to practise is impaired.

19. In all the circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order is the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose at the expiry of the current Suspension Order. Any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr John Young from the Register on the expiry of the current Order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 27 November 2022.

History of Hearings for John Young