Andrew Weston

Preliminary Matters

Procedure

1. The Panel decided to consider the facts (Conviction) and impairment as a single stage. Then, if appropriate and separately, to consider sanction.

Proceeding in private

2. Mr Adamou submitted that the entirety of the hearing should be conducted in private as publicity would have a disproportionate and adverse effect on the reputation of the Registrant and would impact seriously on the Registrant’s family. In the alternative Mr Adamou submitted that references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private. Mr Adamou informed the Panel that whilst at the time of the criminal proceedings there had been no publicity about this matter there had been a recent report about the case in a local newspaper.

3. Mr D’Alton submitted that there were no grounds for directing that the entirety of the case should be held in private. Sparing the Registrant embarrassment was not a reason for departing from the basic presumption that a fitness to practise hearing should be conducted in public. However, he agreed that references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private.

4. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, the Panel determined that references to the health of the Registrant should be received in private but otherwise this was a public hearing. The submissions made by Mr Adamou did not justify a departure from the general rule that fitness to practise hearings should be conducted in public. The Panel also noted that the criminal proceedings had been conducted in public and also that the case had received recent publicity in a local newspaper.

Background

5. The Registrant is a Paramedic registered with the HCPC. The Registrant was previously employed in this capacity by the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust ('the Trust') from 29 December 2014 until his dismissal on 29 September 2021.

6. On 19 March 2021, the Registrant was arrested by Cambridgeshire Police on suspicion of making/viewing indecent images of children. Following interview, he was bailed until 17 April 2021.

7. On the same day he was arrested,19 March 2021 the Trust notified the Registrant that he was suspended from duty on full pay with immediate effect pending an internal investigation.

8. On 22 March 2021, the Trust notified the HCPC of its concerns and advised the Registrant that he should self-refer to the HCPC. The same day the Registrant did so, sending a completed self-referral form and a copy of his bail conditions. In that referral the Registrant stated: “I am currently on bail for the alleged offence of “Child - Indecent images” although I have not yet been charged. I was arrested at home at around 7am on Friday 19th March 2021 and my laptop and two phones were seized.”

9. The Registrant provided details of the officer in charge of the investigation and his bail conditions, which included no unsupervised contact or communication with any child under the age of 16.

10. On 11 August 2021, the Registrant was interviewed as part of disciplinary proceedings commenced by the Trust. On 23 September 2021, the Registrant attended a disciplinary hearing conducted by the Trust. On 29 September 2021, the Registrant was summarily dismissed.

11. On 12 October 2021, the HCPC was informed by the Police that, “the CPS has decided to charge the Registrant with three offences of making indecent images of children”.
12. On 4 March 2022, the Registrant pleaded guilty to all three charges as set out in the Allegation.

13. On 4 May 2022, these matters were considered by a panel of the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service (HCPTS) Investigating Committee. The Panel referred these matters for consideration by the Conduct and Competence Committee.

14. The Panel has seen the Memorandum of an Entry in the Register of the Cambridge Magistrates Court (the Memorandum of Conviction) which records that on 04 March 2022, the Registrant was convicted of the offences that are set out in the Allegation.

15. The Registrant was committed to the Peterborough Crown Court for sentence. On 15 July 2022 the Registrant was sentenced as follows:

i. 6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months;

ii. 30 days' rehabilitation activity and 120 hours unpaid work;

iii. Subject to a sexual harm prevent order for 7 years

iv. Ordered to pay costs of £425

Sentencing remarks by the Recorder at the Cambridge Crown Court

16. On 15 July 2002 and at the Cambridge Crown Court, to which the Registrant had been committed for sentence, Recorder Fields, in imposing the sentences set out in paragraph 12 made the following observations:

“Mr Weston, you can remain seated for the time being. In March of last year, the police were alerted that there was a link between your apparent work account and a Kik account and that there was a shared child abuse image. For that reason, they attended your home address. It’s right to say that you were cooperative with the police on their arrival, obviously notwithstanding the fact that it was a surprise to you that they were visiting and no doubt devastating for your family.
Further interrogation – at the time, you showed the officer who attended that which forms the substance of the second of the charges, the Category B child abuse images, but further interrogation of the telephone revealed five Category A images, including effectively a two-minute video of a young child inserting a hairbrush handle into her vagina. That is a significant aggravating feature, that these are moving images of children being abused.
The Category B image examined, the one which you’d shown the officers at the house. That is a video of one minute showing a naked child aged 10 to 12 years sitting on the lap of an adult female as the adult female touched her private – the child’s private parts. And there were also four Category C images recovered.
You were interviewed and what you said was this, that the account – the Kik account had been set up by you and your wife at a much earlier date. Abandoned by your wife, you had then retained the account and you’d used it effectively for your own sexual gratification, searching terms which would, you said, have given you images of young women, 18/19, teenagers and so on, that you’d download those images in bulk and that you were aware that there was a risk and indeed the actuality in those downloads of there being child abuse images such as were discovered in this case.
There are few images in number here compared to some cases which come before the court but in that connection you explained that you were in the habit of deleting the images and the Kik application after use in order to prevent detection. There is, in my judgment – and it’s indeed conceded that this case passes the custody threshold; that is to say that a prison sentence is merited.
The dilemma as always for this court is this, that if you go to prison then bearing in mind the guidelines for this type of offence, you would serve only a relatively short time inside. It would be insufficient particularly in the current climate within prisons of there being any education or hope of rehabilitation. I have therefore to think, well, how best might the public be protected in the future from you and your – you seeking sexual gratification from the exploitation of children and their abuse?
I hope it’s been driven home to you in the steps you’ve already been taking that the children who are in these images are real children. Their lives are blighted. Lives. Not just the moment when the images are taken, but they will spend the rest of their lives knowing that out there, there are images of them being abused as children. That is an awful thought to wrestle with.
So what best to do with you, then? Well, it seems to me that the opportunity provided by the probation service through the Horizon program is one that you would be best to undertake if the public is to be protected in the future. Would you stand, please.
I give you, as I say, full credit for your guilty pleas in the Magistrates’ Court. In respect of the Category A images, the sentence I pass upon you is one of six months’ imprisonment. For Category B images, four months’ imprisonment. For the Category C images, two months’ imprisonment. All of those sentences will run concurrently; that is to say, at the same time. So six months’ prison sentence suspended for a period of 18 months. The Sexual Harm Prevention Order in the light of that will last for seven years. You’re also subject to the notification requirements and I so certify to that effect. You’ve already been signing on, I take it, at the police station.

DEFENDANT: Yes (inaudible)

RECORDER FIELDS: I do – I’ve already ordered the deprivation in res – of the phone. The surcharge applies in this case. I direct that an order be drawn up accordingly. There will be costs of £425 payable at the rate of £100 a month. The first payment will be due on the 31st of August at the end of each – last working day of each month thereafter until the whole of the financial penalty has been paid.
There will be conditions, as I say, upon the suspended sentence of imprisonment. It’s suspended for 18 months, during which time you’ll undertake 30 days’ rehabilitation activity requirement and you will undertake 120 hours of unpaid work. You must speak with a probation officer before you leave court and you will be given your first appointment at that stage or given instructions of how you will receive such detail.
What that sentence means, Mr Weston, is this: that you don’t go out of the back door today but should you fail to complete the order which – as I’ve directed or commit any further offence within the operational period of 18 months, you will then be brought back to court, you’ll be sentenced for the new matter and this sentence of imprisonment is likely to be activated and, moreover, activated consecutive to any sentence for any new matter. You understand that? So you must co-operate with probation service, you must do the work as required otherwise you can be brought back to court on breach proceedings and expect this order to be activated.”

Statement by the Registrant

17. The Panel has seen a statement from the Registrant dated 27 January 2023, submitted for the consideration of the Panel, which is in the following terms;

“I, Andrew Weston, make the following statement to the HCPC Conduct and Competence Committee:

QUALIFICATIONS/EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
I wanted to become a paramedic in order to have a career in which I would be challenged every day and be able to deal with various scenarios. I enjoy helping people and I also enjoy learning new skills which is always necessary as a paramedic. I was trained on the East of England Ambulance Service student paramedic pathway and qualified as a Paramedic in 2018 when a achieved a Higher Diploma from Anglia Ruskin University. I was employed by East of England Ambulance Service from 2014 until 2021, starting as a student paramedic and becoming a senior paramedic as well as a mentor and did a six-month secondment as part of the mentor, support and training team at Cambridge station.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
I was convicted of making indecent images of children and subsequently sentenced to six month suspended sentence with 120 hours of unpaid work and 30 RAR days.
My response to the allegations/concerns are set out below:
As a registered Paramedic PA46143 your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct in that:

Allegation 1 - On 4 March 2022, at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of making indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child, namely 5 images of Category A, contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978
I admit that all parts of the allegation are true. I downloaded over hundred pornographic images over a short period of time [redacted]. I found this images on the messaging app Kik where I would join “groups” where people would be sharing pornographic images. I would scroll through the images on my phone pressing the download button on each one and then look at the images after downloading them. I was not seeking underage pornography but unfortunately due to downloading large amounts of images without checking their content beforehand, I unwittingly downloaded 10 illegal images. For example, one illegal video that I downloaded started with just an adult woman on her own until about 30 seconds when an underage girl appeared. Once I realised what I had done I deleted the images but crucially did not delete from completely from my “recently deleted” folder on my phone therefore they remained available on my phone until it was seized by the police. I realised now that once I realised the nature of the material I’d downloaded I should have made sure I had completed deleted them from my phone and reported it to the police. On further reflection I acknowledge that using large amount of unregulated pornography is extremely short-sighted and this lack of judgment is unacceptable as a paramedic, whether in work or at home.
I was viewing pornography on the messaging app Kik as I wished to view “homemade” images, but I have since reflected that many images, including those of adults, were not meant for public viewing and even if people had consented for some people to view their private image(s) they would not necessarily want them to be “traded” between strangers. I had no knowledge of whether or not these images had been shared with consent from the people in them. [redacted]

Allegation 2 - On 4 March 2022, at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of making indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child, namely 1 image of Category B, contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
As above

Allegation 3 - On 4 March 2022, at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of making indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child, namely 4 images of Category C, contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978
As above

Allegation 4 - By reason of your conviction, your fitness to practise is impaired.
I do not believe that my fitness to practise is impaired as my action did not take place while I was working, nor did it effect my ability to work as a paramedic in any way. I do not believe that my ability as a paramedic has ever been in question.

REFLECTION/INSIGHT/REMORSE
On reflection I can see now how downloading and viewing unregulated pornography could be a risk to service users as the images in questions were not necessarily shown to me with consent from the people involved which may include service users. I am deeply remorseful because my behaviour is not a reflection of the person I strive to be and I have let myself, my colleagues, and my employers down. I am fully aware that if that public were to hear of these allegations their perception of the paramedic profession would likely be damaged due to believe that I have contributed in some to the harm of a child. Fortunately, my criminal case was never reported in the press so the public would not be aware of it. Furthermore, the only restriction I have in regards of access to children is that I must make the police and parents/guardians aware of my conviction if I were to spend twelve or more hours in the company of a child under the age of 18 – a circumstance that would be unlikely in the extreme whilst working as a paramedic.

REMEDIATION
Soon after being arrested I voluntarily completed a course through Safer Lives who are specialists in indecent images and I feel that I engage fully and learnt a lot about the offences, whom they effect and myself as a person. [redacted] Therefore, I have an app installed on my phone which notifies my partner whenever current key words or phrases are inputting to help prevent me from being tempted to search for pornography in future.
Since my sentencing I have completed the 120 hours of unpaid work which was gardening at a hospice in Peterborough. I have also completed around half of the 30 RAR days which I do once every four weeks in Wisbech. I have engaged fully in both aspects of my sentence.

MITIGATION
[redacted]

IMPACT (Personal Component)
I am currently working for Cambridge Assessment marking exam papers. My current employers are not aware of the allegations. I was dismissed by EEAST last year and it seems extremely unlikely that I would be able to gain employment as a paramedic with another employer currently. In short, the allegations have had a devastating effect on my career as a paramedic.

IMPACT (Public Component)
I believe that if any service users that I have encountered would feel let down if they were to learn of these allegations, especially those with children or those parents of children that were service users. Very few of my colleagues are aware of my situation and I have been unable to stay in contact with them which is very upsetting for me. They would most likely be very disappointed if they knew and unfortunately their opinion of me would be greatly reduced. Public confidence in the profession would no doubt be negatively affected by any criminal behaviour by a health care professional and I fear it would contribute to a reduction in trust to the profession.

FUTURE PLANS
Although I feel that the chances of working as a paramedic again are very low, if possible, I would love to continue my career as a paramedic within in ambulance. Prior to my arrest I had recently finished a secondment as a trainer/mentor (as mentioned above) and had planned to possible more into training full time as I enjoy secret whatever skills and knowledge I have accrued with newer colleagues.”
Additional documents submitted on behalf of the Registrant
18. In addition to the statement set out above, the Registrant has submitted a number of documents, all of which the Panel has read. These include character references, testimonials from service users as to the quality of care that they have received from the Registrant and professional courses that the Registrant has undertaken.
A letter from Safer Lives

19. The Panel has also seen a letter from Safer Lives dated 16 June 2021 which was tendered by the Registrant for the purposes of this hearing. The opening lines suggest that it was initially obtained for the purposes of being submitted at the criminal proceedings. The letter was in the following terms;

“Your Honour/ Worships

RE: Mr Andrew Weston – Completion of the Safer Lives Programme.
16th June 2021

Safer Lives is a partnership of three former Probation Officers who within our careers specialised in treating and managing post-sentence sex offenders. Since beginning Safer Lives in 2014, we have focused our work on pre-sentence support for men to help them understand their behaviour and safeguard against their suicide. Mr Weston sourced Safer Lives himself and has paid all fees incurred.
This letter is not an assessment of Mr Weston or his behaviour and does not reflect the full extent of his learning through and beyond the Safer Lives Programme, which he completed in May 2021. It is written as a summary of his journey through the five-session programme and his investigation period, to his new understanding of how his offences were committed, and his response to it.

Context to Offending and Creating the Opportunity to Offend.

[redacted] He began using dating sites which resulted in some short-term intimate relationships and encounters, before meeting his future life-partner. This relationship improved his confidence, his pornography use dwindled, and he found work as an ambulance driver, then trained into a career as a paramedic, something he has very much cherished. But he explains that [redacted] in the job and describes a culture of just ‘having to get on with it’, recalling by example an incident of cutting down a suicide victim one moment and then having to attend to more mundane callouts, without time or opportunity to process the emotional stresses. He says this became particularly acute during waves of the Covid pandemic when he was relentlessly picking up emergency patients. [redacted] He explains that about five years ago,[redacted], he started to use the online Kik Mesenger site to speak to people in similar professions and find a way of processing things with people who could relate to his work experiences. He says his use of the Kik app would peak during times of [redacted] but, after a period of abstinence from it, it re-triggered as the country went into Lockdown, and he feared taking the virus home to his family. [redacted] At these times [redacted], he would go to Kik Messenger and was soon side-tracked into unmoderated group chats with highly sexualised content, and with direct messaging between participants. Amateur and home-taken pornographic or sexualised Images would commonly be exchanged, and this would feed into a compulsion for downloading large quantities of the unregulated pornography, but it also exposed him to illegal content. Often it happened in the early morning hours when his worries seemed magnified, and people online were more disinhibited and extreme in their stated fantasies.

Motivation for and Function of the Behaviour.

Mr Weston explains that unlike his previous Kik Messenger use, there was little social chat in these groups, and the emphasis was on sexually explicit conversation, and he engaged willingly with people expressing and role-playing sometimes extreme sexual fantasies. Usually, any exchange of sexual images would be of adults, but sometimes they were darker, including sexual images of children. There was a recklessness in the behaviour that provided a portal into a seemingly detached and surreal world where liberal discussion on sexually themes could distract from [redacted], and he could avoid thinking about his worries.

Giving himself permissions and overcoming child victim resistance.

Mr Weston explains that arousal in the adult conversations was very powerful and put him into irrational states of mind. When child images came along, he could give himself the permission that he wasn’t purposefully searching for them and that although he didn’t want it, it was just something he had to tolerate as part of being in the groups and chats. When images of older children came along, he says he could convince himself they were eighteen or ‘close enough’ and that they were willing participants. He simply overlooked the harmful nature of the behaviour. He says the chat rooms were so disinhibited that he also came to believe they were unpoliced and, that if others were doing it, then he would also be safe from being caught by the Police and too careful to be caught by his partner.

What has changed.

Mr Weston has engaged fully with the Safer Lives Programme, and his arrest and our work has given him clarity from what he felt was a surreal world in which he could detach from [redacted] but also from the real harm it was causing to others and his own family. Of the harm caused by his behaviour he now writes, “I have come to the realisation that many adult images that I have seen were self-generated which I took as consent for myself to view and share online. In fact, in most cases the people concerned would probably not wish for me to view images that they may have considered private and would find the fact that these images are being viewed by strangers online potentially very distressing. Although I never intentionally wished to view underage images online I accept that I was in an environment where such material is sometimes shared and I have great remorse and shame that I continued to frequent such groups. I accept that I have caused great psychological harm to those children in the images I have seen as each time these images are viewed and shared it accentuates the trauma their initial abuse and shame in having it distributed indefinitely. I know now that it was all too easy for me to accept that occasionally coming in contact with underage images was an unwanted "by-product" of searching for unsolicited adult pornography when I should have realised how dangerous and harmful this was straight away.”
[redacted] He says they has become more open about each other's coping and behaviours, including him being accountable to her for his internet use, including pornography. He is also supported by his wider family. He is suspended by his governing body and will consider his employment prospects when outcomes from this investigation are known. [redacted]”

Oral evidence from the Registrant

20. The Registrant gave evidence to the Panel and responded to questions. In brief summary his evidence was as follows;
⦁ He adopted his written statement as set out above.
⦁ With regard to the contents of the letter from Safer Lives, whilst not dissenting from the contents, he suggested that it might be somewhat misleading as the observations attributed to him were condensed from a number of conversations over a period of six to seven weeks and in response to questions.
⦁ He did not accept that his fitness to practise is currently impaired.
⦁ He stressed that it was not his intention to download illicit images but he accepted that he was aware that it was a risk that amongst the images that he did download there would be images of under age children. He said that in downloading the material of under age children, his actions were “careless and unwitting” rather than deliberate.
⦁ He explained that he deleted the material from his phone so as to avoid detection.
⦁ He said that he had used his work email address when registering with the Kik site.
⦁ He said that he had not shared the illicit images with any third party.
⦁ [redacted] He emphasised that he had no sexual interest in underage children.
⦁ He had not told his present employer or friends or former colleagues of the convictions. He had young children and he would not want fellow parents to be aware of the convictions.
⦁ He very much wanted to resume work as a Paramedic. The profession was of great importance to him.
⦁ He accepted that the conviction could have a serious impact on the reputation of the profession. However, he did not think that a parent of a seriously ill child would be concerned if their child was to be treated by a Paramedic who had received a conviction of the kind that he had received.
⦁ [redacted] He would not again use pornography for that purpose. He had arranged for an App to be applied to his phone to alert his partner in the event that he had downloaded pornography. He said that because of the cost and the perceived lack of need, he had deleted the App after a year.
⦁ Because of present demands on his time he had been unable to maintain his professional skills as a Paramedic.
⦁ He accepted that if he was again employed as a Paramedic he would have to tell his employer of the convictions.
⦁ He explained that he had not obtained any references later than those dated 2021 as he did not think that his situation had changed in the intervening time.
⦁ He said that his insight remained the same as it was at the time of the criminal proceedings.

Submissions made as to the facts [conviction] and impairment

21. The Panel heard and considered the submissions of Mr D’Alton on behalf of the HCPC in respect of the facts [Conviction] and impairment. In brief summary he submitted as follows;
⦁ The Convictions set out in the particulars of the Allegation are proved by the Memorandum of Conviction.
⦁ That in the circumstances of this case the Panel was entitled to conclude that the Registrant’s present fitness to practise is impaired. He submitted that for the reasons he set out, there was a risk of repetition. In this context Mr D’Alton noted that the Registrant’s duties as a paramedic would bring him into contact with vulnerable persons often in very vulnerable situations.
⦁ He also submitted that for the reasons he identified, public confidence in the profession and the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour within the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment was not made; consequently the “public component” was also engaged. He referred specifically to the decision in the case of the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Dental Council and Fleischmann [2005] EWHC 87 (Admin) and to the Standards of Conduct referred to below.
⦁ He submitted that the `Panel should find impairment with reference to both the personal and the public component.

22. The Panel considered the submissions of Mr Adamou on behalf of the Registrant, on facts (conviction) and impairment. In brief summary he submitted as follows:
⦁ The convictions had been properly proved.
⦁ That the Registrant had developed considerable insight into his actions.
⦁ [redacted]
⦁ The Registrant had not intended to download indecent images of under age children.
⦁ The Registrant had been candid in his answers to the Panel and also had pleaded guilty to the offences.
⦁ The Panel should only take into account the specific offences specified in the Memorandum of Conviction.
⦁ The case of Fleischmann was not authority for concluding that all cases involving a criminal conviction where the sentence had not been fully served should result in a finding of impairment.
⦁ The Registrant was not a risk to service users and the offences were not committed by him in his capacity as a Paramedic
⦁ The reputation of the profession of a Paramedic and that of the HCPC would not be undermined if the Panel did not find that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired.
⦁ A finding of impairment was not required either to protect members of the public or address the public interest.

23. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to facts [conviction] and Impairment.

24. The Panel was aware that on matters of fact the burden of proof rests on the HCPC and that the standard of proof is the civil one, namely on the balance of probabilities.
Decision on Facts [Conviction]

25. Having considered all the evidence that it has received and the submissions that it has heard, the Panel makes the following findings;
With regard to Particulars 1-3 of the Allegation - Proved.

26. In coming to the conclusion that the HCPC have proved the facts of the convictions, the Panel has seen and read the Memorandum of Conviction. This Memorandum is conclusive evidence of the convictions. Moreover, the Registrant has always accepted that he was convicted of the offences set out in the Memorandum of Conviction and has formally admitted the convictions at the start of today’s hearing.

Decision 

27. The Panel next considered whether by reason of the conviction, the Registrant’s fitness to practise is presently impaired.

28. The Panel is aware that what is to be assessed is the Registrant’s current fitness to practise. In considering this issue, the Panel considered and applied the principles stated by Mrs Justice Cox in the case of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v Nursing and Midwifery Council; Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927 [Admin]. The Panel also had regard to the observations of Mr Justice Silber in the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin). In particular, the Panel considered whether there was a risk that the Registrant would in the future act in the manner established by the conviction. The Panel also considered whether public confidence in the profession, in the HCPC as its regulator and the need to maintain proper standards of conduct, would be prejudiced if a finding of current impairment was not made. The Panel has also had regard to the case of Fleischmann.

29. The Panel accepted that by reason of the conviction and the facts that led to those convictions, the Registrant is in breach of Standard 9.1 of the HCPC Standards of conduct, performance and ethics (2016 edition) which provides:

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

And of Standard 3.1 of Proficiency for Paramedics (2018) which provides:

“understand the need to maintain high standards of personal and professional conduct”

30. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s current fitness to practise is presently impaired by reason of the conviction. Its reasons include the following;
⦁ The Panel has concluded that there is a risk that the Registrant will again access pornography involving underage children. In coming to this conclusion, the Panel had in mind the sentencing remarks of the Recorder and also the explanation offered by the Registrant and set out in the letter from Safer Lives.
⦁ Whilst noting that the Registrant was not convicted of being involved in the production of the indecent images but specifically downloading and being in possession of them, the Panel did note the number and grave nature of the offences for which the Registrant had been convicted, which involved images of the most serious kind (category A images).
⦁ The Panel was concerned by the fact that the Registrant appears to have shown little remorse and contrition. The Panel considered that the Registrant had displayed insufficient insight into the gravity and consequences of his offences.
⦁ The Panel kept in mind that the Registrant’s profession of a Paramedic would inevitably bring him into contact with underage children often in very vulnerable circumstances.
⦁ The Panel noted the guidance expressed in the case of Fleischmann and in particular that the Registrant was still serving a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

31. Further, the Panel has concluded, that for all the reasons that are set out above, a well-informed member of the public, aware of all the circumstances of this case and of the factors that have been identified by the Panel, would consider that a finding of impairment is necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the profession, in its regulator or in order to preserve and uphold proper standards within the profession. In the opinion of the Panel a well-informed member of the public would be gravely concerned if the Registrant was allowed to practise without some restriction on his ability to do so.

32. For the reasons set out above, the Panel has concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of his conviction. This finding is required with reference to both the personal and the public component.
Decision on Sanction

33. Having concluded that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired, the Panel proceeded to consider what, if any Order, is appropriate and proportionate in order to address the considerations set out above.

34. Both Counsel have provided very clear oral submissions for which the Panel is grateful. Both Counsel have made specific reference to the Sanctions Policy published by the HCPC in March 2019 [ the SP] and to its contents.

35. In respect of the Sanction that the Panel should impose, Mr D’Alton made submissions which in brief summary were as follows;
• The offences for which the Registrant was convicted are very serious and included making images of a Category A level.
• There was a risk that the Registrant would again repeat the offence of resorting to pornographic material.
• The Registrant had displayed very little evidence of remorse, insight or remediation.
• The Registrant had however pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had co-operated with the police, his employer and the HCPC.
• The cases of Fleischmann [referred to above] and R (Low) v General Osteopathic Council [2007] EWHC 2838 (admin) are relevant. The Orders made at the Peterborough Crown Court included an order that the Registrant should remain on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 7 years.
• The guidance in the SP relating to Criminal Convictions, Offences relating to indecent images of children, Suspension and Strike off are all of specific relevance to this case and should be considered by the Panel.

36. In response to Mr D’Alton’s submissions, Mr Adamou made submissions which in brief summary were as follows;
• That prior to the offences in this case the Registrant’s career was unblemished.
• The offences did not take place within a work place context and there was no direct abuse of any service user.
• That in the context of this case there was limited opportunity for the Registrant to apologise for the offences.
• Insight is a developing characteristic and there was material available to the Panel which was suggestive of increasing insight and remediation. Moreover, the Registrant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had engaged throughout with the police, his then employer and the HCPC.
• That it was not suggested on behalf of the Registrant that no restrictions should be placed on the Registrant’s ability to practise.
• That a Conditions of Practice Order including stringent conditions which could require tight supervision and the absence of direct physical contact with service users would be sufficient to protect the public and to address the public interest.
• That if the Panel felt unable to formulate a Conditions of Practice Order which adequately addressed the risk and other relevant factors, the appropriate order for the Panel to make was a Suspension Order.
• The Panel should regard a Striking Off Order as an order of last resort only to be imposed where the circumstances justified the conclusion that a registrant could not redeem himself. This was not such a case. Accordingly, a Striking Off Order in this case would be disproportionate and inappropriate.

37. The Panel has heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

38. In considering the appropriate order to make, the Panel had regard to the HCPC's Sanctions Policy [SP] published in March 2019, to both Counsel’s submissions, to all the evidence that it has received, and to all the documents to which it has been referred. The Panel has heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.

39. With regard to the SP, the Panel has had particular regard to the paragraphs in the SP which address,
a) the Sexual abuse of children [paragraphs 78 and 79].
b) Criminal convictions and cautions [paragraphs 80-84]
c) Sex Offending [paragraphs 85 and 86]
d) Offences related to indecent images of children [paragraphs 87- 89]
e) Conditions of Practice Orders [paragraphs 105-117]
f) Suspension Orders [paragraphs 118-126] and
g) Striking Off Orders [paragraphs 127-132]

40. The Panel has considered both the aggravating and the mitigating factors.

Aggravating Factors

41. As regards the aggravating factors, the Panel noted the following:

· The offences were very serious involving images of children at a Category A level.
· There was only limited evidence of insight, contrition and remorse. In this context the Panel was concerned by the Registrant’s statement set out above that
“However, he did not think that a parent of a seriously ill child would be concerned if their child was to be treated by a Paramedic who had received a conviction of the kind that he had received.”

· There was a risk that the Registrant would continue to have access to pornographic material that might involve images of children.
· That on any view of the material before the Panel, it was clear that the Registrant had continued to obtain access to the pornographic material, notwithstanding the fact that he appreciated that it might contain images of under age children.

Mitigating factors

42. As regards the mitigating factors the Panel noted the following;
• That prior to the commission of the offences the Registrant had an unblemished professional career.
• That the Registrant had pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity. He had also engaged throughout with the police, his then employer and with the HCPC.
• There was some evidence of developing insight, remorse and remediation.

43. The Panel has applied the principle of proportionality. The Panel is aware that the purpose of a sanction is not to be punitive; that the Panel must consider the risk the Registrant may pose to members of the public, including potential service users and take account of the wider public interest. The Panel was conscious that it must not make a more restrictive or longer order than that required to address the risks that it has identified.

44. The Panel has considered the sanctions available to it in ascending order of restriction. The Panel considered that to take no action, to require mediation or to impose a Caution Order would not be appropriate, as none of these outcomes / or orders would afford the necessary public protection or address the public interest. The Panel noted that Mr Adamou had not suggested that the Panel should consider any such approach.

45. The Panel next considered whether a Conditions of Practice Order would adequately address the concerns identified. The Panel considers that it cannot formulate Conditions of Practice which would sufficiently protect members of the public or address the public interest. Its reasons for coming to this conclusion include the following;
• The offences did not occur within the workplace or involve the Registrant’s clinical practice. The offences were attitudinal in character and as such are difficult to address by a Conditions of Practice Order.
• In the context of this case a Conditions of Practice Order would be hard to reconcile with the decisions and guidance given in the case of both Low and Fleischmann.
• That any conditions of practice that might be suggested as sufficient to address the identified risk and the public interest would amount to suspension.

46. The Panel next considered the imposition of a Suspension Order. It concluded that a Suspension Order would not be adequate or appropriate. It has determined that the only appropriate and proportionate Order for it to make is a Striking Off Order. The Panel’s reasons for coming to this conclusion include;
· The nature and length of the suspended custodial sentence and the other orders imposed at the Peterborough Crown Court.
· The guidance set out in paragraphs 79, 89, 121 and 130 of the SP. The Panel noted in particular that there is a risk of repetition of the offences and that the offences for which the Registrant was convicted included making indecent images of children of a category A level.
· The Panel concluded that a period of suspension would not remove or mitigate the considerations that have led the Panel to determine that a Striking Off Order is the only appropriate order for it to make. At the end of any suspension period that could realistically be contemplated, members of the public would remain deeply concerned if they were to know that they or their children were to be treated by a Paramedic, who had been convicted of the offences set out and who had been made the subject of the suspended custodial sentence and the other orders imposed at the Peterborough Crown Court.

47. Accordingly, the Panel has determined that the only appropriate and proportionate order for it to make is a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Andrew Weston from the Register on the date this order comes into effect.

Interim Order

Application

1. Mr D’Alton applies for an Interim Suspension Order on the grounds that it is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. He submits that having regard to the determination in this case and the Suspension Order that the Panel has imposed, an Interim Suspension Order is required for the reasons set out above in order to protect the public and the public interest until such time as any appeal has been decided alternatively the appeal period has expired without an appeal being lodged.

2. Mr Adamou does not oppose the making of such an Order.

3. Having heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor the Panel determines that an Interim Suspension Order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. Its reasons are the same as those stated above. The Panel determines that the Interim Suspension Order will remain in place for the period set out below.

Decision

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

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 Andrew Weston