Mr Chad Stockley
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 (PA46749) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of conviction and/or misconduct. In that:
1. On 9 February 2022 at Warwick Crown Court you were convicted on indictment of sexual assault on a male.
2. You did not inform the HCPC that you had been convicted of the offence outlined at Particular 1.
3. Your conduct in relation to Particular 2 was dishonest.
4. The matters set out in Particulars 2 and/or 3 above constitute misconduct.
5. By reason of your conviction and/or misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired
Finding
Preliminary Matters
Service
1. The Panel noted that the Notice of Hearing, specifying the hearing dates, 28 February 2023 and 1 March 2023, had been sent to the Registrant at his registered email address with the HCPC on 20 December 2022.
2. The Notice of Hearing contained information relating to the format and nature of the hearing. The HCPC received notification on 20 December 2022 that “delivery” of the email was “complete”. The Panel was satisfied that proper and reasonable notice of today’s hearing had been served on the Registrant in accordance with the rules.
Proceeding in absence
3. The Panel next considered proceeding in the Registrant’s absence. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who drew the Panel’s attention to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. It noted that it has the power to do so under Rule 11 of the Conduct and Competence Committee Procedure Rules (“the Rules”) if it is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Registrant. The Panel must also consider all the circumstances of the case, balancing fairness to the Registrant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.
4. The Panel had already satisfied itself that service of the Notice of Hearing had been effected in accordance with the Rules.
5. The Panel was aware that its discretion to proceed in absence is one which should be exercised with care and caution. It noted the guidance in the HCPTS Practice Note on Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant that the discretion whether to proceed must be exercised having regard to all the circumstances of which the Panel is aware, with fairness to the Registrant being a prime consideration, but balanced with fairness to the HCPC and to the public interest.
6. In reaching its decision, the Panel has noted that: there was no application for an adjournment; even if the hearing was adjourned to allow the Registrant to attend, this would not necessarily guarantee his attendance in the future due to the Registrant’s failure to engage with the HCPC at any stage.
7. The Panel therefore concluded that the Registrant had voluntarily chosen to absent himself. In these circumstances, the Panel was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to proceed in the Registrant’s absence.
Decision and reasons on application to admit evidence of SY, Registrations Manager at the HCPC
8. Ms Navarro made an application for the entire witness statement of SY dated 31 October 2022 to be admitted into evidence pursuant to Rule 10 (1)(b) of the (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003.
9. The Panel accepted the advice of the legal assessor.
10. The Panel was mindful that the rules on the admissibility of evidence are those that apply in civil proceedings. The Panel had regard to the contents of SY’s witness statement and determined that it provided factual information relevant to the allegations. The Panel therefore determined to allow all of SY’s witness statement into evidence on the basis that it would attach the appropriate weight when making its decision.
Background
11. The Registrant is a Paramedic and was employed by West Midlands Ambulance Service ('WMAS') from 28 September 2009 to 15 October 2020.
12. On 6 July 2020 the Registrant and an Ambulance Technician ('colleague') attended to an emergency callout to the home of an elderly gentleman ('patient') who had experienced loss of consciousness.
13. On arrival at the scene was the patient and the victim, who is the grandson of the patient. The victim was aged 18 at the time. The patient was assessed by both medical professionals and it was concluded that he had suffered a stroke.
14. A stretcher was required from the ambulance and the Registrant asked the victim to assist him with taking this out of the vehicle. Whilst in the ambulance, the victim was distressed by the situation and had a panic attack in which his leg went numb.
15. The Registrant tried to calm the victim down by hugging him and telling him to take deep breaths. The Registrant then massaged the victim's leg and then proceeded to rub the victim's crotch area.
16. The colleague called the Registrant on the radio to enquire where he was as he had been gone for a long time. The Registrant stated that the victim was having a panic attack and he was dealing with that. After some more time, the colleague sent the family member to the ambulance. The Registrant then returned to his colleague with the stretcher and placed the patient into the ambulance.
17. On 8 July 2020 the Registrant was arrested by the police for a sexual assault offence relating to the events of 6 July 2020. The Registrant was suspended from duty by WMAS on 10 July 2020 owing to the seriousness of the allegation.
18. On 12 October 2020 a disciplinary hearing was held by WMAS and the Registrant attended with a union representative. The outcome of this hearing was that the Registrant was terminated from his employment as a Paramedic and the decision was not appealed.
19. On 8 April 2021 the Registrant was charged with 'Sexual Assault – Intentionally Touch Male No Penetration'.
20. On 9 February 2022 the Registrant was convicted of the above charge at Warwick Crown Court. He received a sentence of community order for 2 years; rehabilitation activity requirement of 30 days, and Sex Offenders Notice for 5 years.
21. The Registrant had not notified the HCPC of the criminal charge or conviction. The HCPC were informed of the criminal investigation by correspondence from the Disclosure and Barring Service on 11 September 2020.
Decision on Facts
22. The Panel was provided with the following documents:
• The HCPC’s hearing bundle containing correspondence between the HCPC and the Disclosure & Barring Service;
• Letter advising information as to registrant's arrest on 8 July 2020 by West Midlands Police, dated 5 November 2020;
• Email correspondence between the HCPC and West Midlands Ambulance Service with attached documents, dated 19 January 2020;
• Management Statement of Case, dated 28 September 2020;
• Appendix A/1 Notification of suspension dated 10 July 2020;
• Letter with outcome of disciplinary hearing, dated 15 October 2020
• Email from West Midlands Police with MG4 Charge sheet, dated 20 April 2021;
• Email from Warwick Crown Court and Conviction Certificate, dated 1 June 2022;
• Sentencing remarks, dated 4 March 2022;
• Witness Statement from SY, Registrations Manager at the HCPC, dated 31 October 2022.
23. The Panel was mindful that the burden of proof was on the HCPC and that the civil standard of proof applied, so the particulars of the allegation must be proved on the balance of probabilities.
24. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Navarro on behalf of the HCPC and the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
25. The Panel made the following findings of fact:
1. On 09 February 2022 at Warwick Crown Court you were convicted on indictment of sexual assault on a male
26. With regard to Particular 1 the Panel was provided by the HCPC with evidence of the certificate of conviction dated 1 June 2022 and a copy of the Judge’s sentencing remarks dated 4 March 2022.
27. It was submitted on behalf of the HCPC that where the Registrant has been convicted of a criminal offence, a certified copy of the certificate of conviction shall be admissible as proof of that conviction and of the findings of fact upon which it was based, pursuant to Rule 10 (1)(d) of the (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003.
28. The Panel noted that a conviction allegation can be proved by the production of the certified copy of the Memorandum of Conviction. The Panel was satisfied from the evidence produced that Particular 1 is found proved.
2. You did not inform the HCPC you had been convicted of the offence outlined at particular 1.
29. The evidence in support of Particular 2 is provided by reference to the HCPC’s Standard of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (January 2016). The HCPC make particular reference to Standard 9.5 which provides as follows:
You must tell us as soon as possible if:
- You accept a caution from the police, or you have been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence.
30. The Panel also had regard to the contents of the statement of SY, Registrations Manager at the HCPC dated 31 October 2022, which confirmed that the Registrant did not notify the HCPC of his criminal conviction dated 9 February 2022. The Panel had not received any representations from the Registrant.
31. Accordingly, the Panel found Particular 2 proved.
3. Your conduct in relation to particular 2 was dishonest.
32. The HCPC outlined a chronology detailing a timeline of events since the date of the incident on 6 July 2020 until the conviction on 9 February 2022.
33. The Panel noted that the Registrant was employed as a paramedic since 2017 and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the Registrant, the Panel determined that the Registrant would have had knowledge of the standards expected of a registered paramedic.
34. When considering the Registrant’s state of mind, the Panel had regard to the test set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC and considered each limb of the test. The Panel determined that in all the circumstances, the Registrant’s actions were, by the standards of ordinary decent people, dishonest. Accordingly, Particular 3 is proved.
Decision on Grounds
35. The Panel found Particular 1 proved and the Panel was satisfied from the evidence produced that the ground of conviction was established.
36. The Panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved in relation to the particulars, or any of them, amounted to misconduct.
37. The Panel was mindful that the question whether the proven facts constituted misconduct is a matter for the Panel’s professional judgement, there being no standard or burden of proof.
38. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor.
39. The Panel found the Registrant to have been in breach of the following standards of HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016):
• Standard 1.7: You must keep your relationships with service users and carers professional;
• Standard 9.5: You must tell us as soon as possible if:
-You accept a caution from the police, or you have been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offence.
40. The Registrant was convicted of a serious offence involving sexual assault on a male. The Registrant did not advise the HCPC that he had been arrested, charged and ultimately convicted of the offence. He received a sentence of community order for 2 years; rehabilitation activity requirement of 30 days, and a Sex Offenders Notice for 5 years.
41. The Registrant did not notify the HCPC of the circumstances leading to the conviction or of his conviction for the offence. The HCPC was informed of the criminal investigation in correspondence with the Disclosure and Barring Service on 11 September 2020.
42. The Panel considered the Registrant’s conduct to be a serious breach of professional boundaries and one which could properly be described as “deplorable” by fellow professionals and by the standards of ordinary, decent members of the public. This was compounded by his dishonesty in failing to inform the HCPC that he had been convicted of the offence.
43. The Panel found each of these particulars to constitute misconduct and that such misconduct was extremely serious.
Decision on Impairment
44. The Panel took into account the submissions on behalf of the HCPC. There were no submissions from the Registrant as he has failed to engage with the proceedings. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise is Impairment.”
45. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who advised the Panel to consider the criteria set out in the case of Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence v (1) Nursing and Midwifery Council (2) Paula Grant [2011] EWHC 927, namely whether the Registrant:
• Has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a member or members of the public at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or
• Has in the past and/or is liable in the future to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or
• Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the profession.
• Has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable in the future to act dishonestly.
46. In accordance with the case of Cohen v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 581, the Legal Assessor advised the Panel to ask whether the Registrant’s conduct is easily remediable, whether it has in fact been remedied, and whether it is highly unlikely to be repeated.
47. In determining whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct, the Panel took into account both the “personal” and “public” components of impairment. The “personal” component relates to the Registrant’s own practice as a Paramedic, including any evidence of insight and remorse and efforts towards remediation. The “public” component includes the need to protect service users, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession and the Regulator.
48. With regard to the “personal” component, the Panel noted that the Registrant has not engaged in the proceedings, therefore there is no evidence that he had expressed any remorse. The Panel had regard to the Judge’s sentencing remarks which noted that the Registrant had demonstrated no remorse.
49. In the absence of any engagement from the Registrant, the Panel had no evidence of reflection, remediation, insight or re-training.
50. In the absence of any evidence of remorse, insight or remediation, the Panel considered that there would be a significant risk of repetition if the Registrant were permitted to practise without restriction.
51. The Panel also found the “public” component of impairment to be engaged in this case. The Panel considered the Registrant to pose a potential risk to service users. A member of the public, knowing of the Registrant’s conviction and misconduct surrounding the sexual assault on a male, who had consulted him for professional advice and support, would undoubtedly expect some restriction to be placed on his registration. Public confidence in the profession and in the regulator would be undermined if there were no finding of impairment.
Decision on Sanction
52. The Panel took into account the submissions of Ms Navarro on behalf of the HCPC. Ms Navarro submitted that sanction was a matter for the judgement of the Panel. She took the Panel to relevant parts of the HCPC Sanctions Policy and outlined the aggravating and mitigating factors.
53. As the Registrant had failed to engage, there were no submissions from the Registrant.
54. The Panel was guided by the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish the Registrant but to protect the public and the wider public interest in upholding proper standards and maintaining the reputation of the profession. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality, balancing the interests of the Registrant with those of the public, and considered the available sanctions in ascending order.
55. With regard to mitigation, the Panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks, namely that the Registrant has a previously unblemished and distinguished career as a Paramedic.
56. By way of aggravating factors:
• The Registrant was convicted of Sexual Assault and is required to sign the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 5 years;
• The Registrant’s conduct was a gross breach of trust and a breach of his professional duties towards a vulnerable service user;
• There is no evidence that the Registrant had shown any remorse, insight or remediation;
• His dishonest conduct in failing to notify the HCPC of his conviction, had an impact on the trust the public can place on the profession.
57. The case is too serious for the Panel to take no further action.
58. A Caution Order would not reflect the seriousness of the Registrant’s conviction, misconduct and dishonesty.
59. The Panel noted that the Registrant’s clinical capabilities are not in dispute. However, the Panel determined that a Conditions of Practice Order would not be appropriate or proportionate as the Panel could not formulate conditions which would address the underlying concerns regarding the Registrant’s sexual misconduct, conviction and dishonesty.
60. The Panel considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. However, in light of its conclusion regarding the seriousness of the concerns, the attitudinal nature of the Registrant’s misconduct, and no evidence of any insight, remorse or remediation and the consequent risk of repetition, the Panel decided that a Suspension Order would not be appropriate.
61. The Sanctions Policy states that a Striking Off Order is a sanction of last resort for serious persistent and deliberate acts including:
• Dishonesty
• Abuse of professional position, including vulnerability
• Sexual misconduct
and “is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:
• Lacks insight
• Is unwilling to resolve matters”.
62. In the Panel’s judgement all the criteria for a Striking Off Order are applicable in this case. The public is entitled to expect members of the profession to behave with decency, honesty and integrity.
63. In the Panel’s judgement, the Registrant’s misconduct was so serious as to be incompatible with his remaining on the Register. The Panel concluded that a Striking Off Order was required to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour, and maintain confidence in the profession and its Regulator. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s behaviour was wholly unacceptable and was incompatible with registration.
64. The Panel concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in the circumstances of this case was a Striking Off Order.
Order
Order: That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Mr Chad Stockley from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.
Notes
Interim Order
Application
1. Ms Navarro on behalf of the HCPC made an application for an Interim Suspension Order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period or until any appeal lodged has been determined.
Decision
2. The Panel first decided whether to hear that application in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel was mindful that the notice of hearing advised the Registrant of the Panel’s power to make an interim order at this stage of the proceedings. The Panel determined at the outset of this hearing that the Registrant has deliberately absented himself from the hearing and has waived his right to attend. The Panel considered that it was in the public interest to hear the application for an interim order without delay and in the absence of the Registrant.
3. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor as to the basis for making an interim order.
4. Given the Panel’s findings that the Registrant’s actions are fundamentally at variance with remaining on the Register and a Striking Off Order has been imposed, it would be inconsistent with that need for public protection and the wider public interest not to impose some form of interim order. The Panel, for the same reasons identified above, came to the conclusion that it is impracticable and inappropriate to formulate interim conditions of practice in this instance.
5. The Panel therefore makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being in the public interest, having regard to the Panel’s findings of fact and determination as to impairment and sanction.
6. 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) on the final determination of that appeal. This Interim Suspension is for a period of 18 months.
Hearing History
History of Hearings for Mr Chad Stockley
Date | Panel | Hearing type | Outcomes / Status |
---|---|---|---|
28/02/2023 | Conduct and Competence Committee | Final Hearing | Struck off |