Simon David Drew

Preliminary Matters

Proceeding in private

1. The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) made an application for any matters of a personal or health nature to be discussed in private session. Mr Drew (the Registrant) agreed with this application. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and considered the relevant HCPTS Practice Note on “Conducting Hearings in Private”.

2. The Panel was aware that as a starting point, all hearings should be held in public. Where there are overriding considerations, only then should that public interest in hearings held in open session be overridden. The HCPC (Conduct and Competence) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (the Rules) provide the Panel with a discretion to consider such issues of a personal or health nature in private. The right to a private life is enshrined in Human Rights legislation. The Panel gave this matter consideration and agreed the application to hear any matters of a personal or health nature in private.

Background

3. The Registrant was a registered Paramedic at all relevant times.

4. On 28 October 2019, the Registrant was working via an agency at the Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust).

5. The Registrant was working in the resuscitation area of the emergency department (A&E) of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital. It was noted in the early hours of 29 October 2019 that a large number of controlled drugs were missing.

6. The Registrant attended work on 29 October 2019, where he was asked to empty his bag and the missing drugs were found in the possession of the Registrant. The Trust reported this to the Police.

7. On 01 December 2020, the Registrant attended Wycombe Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to the offences as detailed above in the allegations.

8. The Registrant was sentenced on 11 January 2021 and received a community order, a fine of £120, and was ordered to pay a victim surcharge and the Crown Prosecution Service’s costs.

9. The HCPC did not call any witnesses to give live evidence at the substantive hearing of this matter on 31 January 2022.

10. The Registrant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing on 31 January 2022. The substantive hearing panel, on the basis of Rule 10(1)(d) of the Rules and having had sight of the certificate of conviction, found particulars 1 and 3 proved in relation to the conviction.

11. On 31 January 2022, the substantive hearing panel stated in its determination:

“42. … The Panel had limited evidence of insight on the part of the Registrant regarding the serious nature of the failings identified above … Further, the Panel does not have evidence that the Registrant would be willing or able to comply with conditions, should these be formulated. Moreover, the Panel was not satisfied that it could formulate any conditions of practice that would address the concerns raised in this case and which would be workable and enforceable. The Panel concluded that such an order is not appropriate.

43. The Panel considered the SP [Sanctions Policy] which makes clear that a Suspension Order may be appropriate where the allegation is serious and cannot be addressed by any of the lower sanctions, but there is the potential for the Registrant to remedy their failings. The Particulars that have been found to be proved are serious. They involve a conviction for theft and possession of controlled drugs. In relation to the issue of dishonesty, the Panel considered that there are different forms and degrees of dishonesty. The dishonesty in this case relates to one issue, namely the theft of drugs … The Panel considered the duration of the dishonesty in this case to be relevant and noted that it was a single action and when the issue was discovered by the Registrant’s employer and was put to the Registrant, he acknowledged the issue and co-operated.

44. The Registrant has shown a limited degree of insight … The Registrant also pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity in the Magistrates’ Court.

45. The Registrant appears to have been a Paramedic for over 20 years with no apparent regulatory concerns. No concerns have been raised with the Panel in relation to his clinical competence.

46. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s actions are incapable of remediation. There is the potential for the Registrant to develop insight and remediate the concerns set out above. The Panel has some information that this journey had begun by November 2019.

47. The Panel concluded that a period of Suspension would provide the necessary level of public protection for its duration. It would mitigate the risk of repetition which the Panel addressed above and the wider public interest concerns that arise in this case. It would allow the Registrant an opportunity for reflection in which he may potentially develop fuller insight into his failings and evidence his continued remediation. The Panel found a Suspension Order to be the appropriate sanction in this case.

48. In order to test the proportionality of a Suspension Order, the Panel gave very serious consideration to a Striking Off Order. This was a finely balanced decision but the Panel concluded that such an order would not be appropriate because it would be disproportionate given all of the circumstances of this case. A Striking Off Order is a “...sanction of last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts...” (SP, paragraph 130)…

49. The Panel did not consider that actions had been persistent or repeated such as to justify a Striking Off Order at this stage. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that the lesser sanction of a Suspension Order would provide the correct level of public protection and maintain public confidence in the paramedic profession.

50. The Panel next considered the appropriate length of the Suspension Order, and concluded that 12 months was the necessary and appropriate period. Such a period would reflect the serious nature of the conviction that has been found. The Panel considered that a period of 12 months was required given the potential ongoing risks outlined above. A 12-month suspension would reflect the public interest concerns that arise in this case. The Panel also considered that a period of 12 months would be required in order for the Registrant to develop appropriate insight, while evidencing remediation.

51. The Panel considered a review of the Suspension Order would be required before its expiry and wishes to make clear to the Registrant that it would be in his interests to engage in future proceedings and, in particular, to attend future hearings. It would be in the Registrants best interests if he makes all of the following information available in advance of any future hearing:

a. A reflective piece concerning the circumstances leading to the Registrant’s conviction. Any such reflective piece should address the impact of the Registrant’s action on the paramedic profession and the public;

b. An indication of the Registrant’s current employment status and his future intentions in respect of returning to his profession as a paramedic;

c. Details of steps taken to keep his knowledge and skills up-to-date;

d. Testimonials and references from current and recent employers and/or voluntary organisations that he has worked for, detailing his role, responsibilities and performance in that organisation;

e. Evidence of continued interest in addressing remediation with strategies to avoid any repetition of events which concern this Panel;

f. Evidence that the criminal sentence has been satisfactorily completed;

52. The Panel therefore imposes a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months. It is of the view that this sanction addresses both the public protection and public interest issues in this case. The Panel considers that this would act as a deterrent to other Registrants, uphold appropriate standards in signalling the unacceptability of the Registrant’s behaviour and provide public confidence in the profession and its regulator…”

12. At the substantive hearing on 31 January 2022, the panel determined that there was impairment. It imposed a sanction of Suspension for a period of 12 months and imposed an interim order to give effect to the substantive order pending any appeal period.

13. The Suspension Order is due to expire on 28 February 2023.

Today’s Substantive Review

14. Under Article 30 of the Health Professions Order 2001 (the Order), where a panel has imposed a sanction order, the order must be reviewed by a panel before it expires. The Registrant’s Suspension Order is due to expire on 28 February 2023.

Evidence Before Today’s Panel

15. The Registrant confirmed that he had not made available the information identified as being useful by the substantive hearing panel.

16. The Registrant stated that he had been ‘busy’ and had not completed a reflective piece regarding his conduct. He gave evidence that he was also still “in two minds” as to how he feels about returning to work as a paramedic. The Registrant stated that the job had caused him health problems.

17. The Registrant confirmed that he had successfully completed the sentence resulting from his conviction, and the conviction was now spent. He said that he would be able to obtain written evidence of this from his Probation Officer.

18. The Registrant gave evidence that whilst he has not obtained any personal/employment references, he could obtain these. He stated that he has not worked as a paramedic for three years but worked for Carmarthen Council for a year to 2021, and he is now working with a car rental company.

19. In response to questions the Registrant stated that he is going to consider what courses he could attend to undertake Continuing Professional Development (CPD). He stated that if he is going to rejoin the service as a paramedic it would be, for example, to work in ‘event cover’, ‘forensic and custody duties’, and/or ‘first aid training’ roles, which do not include 999 emergency work.

Submissions Before Today’s Panel

HCPC

20. Ms Navarro, the HCPC Presenting Officer, submitted that the Registrant’s practice is still impaired in relation to both the public and personal component.

21. Ms Navarro referenced the case of Abraheam V GMC [2004] EWHC 279 (Admin), which indicates, in practical terms, that a “persuasive burden” is placed on a registrant to demonstrate at a review hearing that they have fully acknowledged the deficiencies which led to the original finding and have addressed that impairment sufficiently “through insight, application, education, supervision or other achievement...”. She noted that the substantive hearing panel had provided clear indicators of the type of information and documentation which would be of assistance, none of which had been produced by the Registrant.

22. Ms Navarro submitted that there was no evidence of remedial steps taken by the Registrant and, therefore, there continued to be a high risk of repetition. As such, she submitted that the Registrant was currently impaired and a sanction ought to be imposed for the protection of the public.

23. She identified that the Registrant has not complied with submitting information regarding his remediation or even the completion of his sentence, having stated that he was ‘too busy’ to complete a reflective piece.

24. Ms Navarro submitted that in light of the Registrant not satisfying the onus on him to show this Panel that he has remediated, the Panel should continue a Suspension Order for a further 12 months.

The Registrant

25. The Registrant made submissions reflecting his oral evidence and submitted that he was in agreement with the HCPC that the Suspension Order should be continued for a period of 12 months.

Decision

26. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel that its purpose today is to conduct a comprehensive review to determine if the Registrant is fit to return to unrestricted practice. She reminded the Panel that its role is not to conduct a rehearing of the Allegation, nor is it to go behind the previous findings. She advised that in carrying out this assessment, the Panel must exercise its own independent judgment. If the evidence before the Panel is sufficient to show that there has been full remediation and full insight gained, such that there is little or no likelihood of a repetition of the misconduct, the Panel may come to the conclusion that there is no continuing impairment and, in such a situation, the Panel may allow the current order to lapse on 28 February 2023.

27. If, however, the Panel determines that the Registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, then the Panel must go on to consider what restriction, if any, should be imposed. She also advised the Panel that it should bear in mind the principles of fairness and proportionality and have regard to the Sanctions Policy document issued by the HCPC. She reminded the Panel that any order it makes under Article 30 should not be punitive in purpose, and that it should be the least restrictive order that would suffice to protect the public and/or would otherwise be in the public interest.

28. The Panel carefully considered the documentation before it and the submissions made on behalf of the HCPC by Ms Navarro and the Registrant.

29. The Panel observed that the substantive hearing panel had given clear guidance on the types of information and documentation which would be of assistance for the purpose of the present substantive review hearing, and despite this clear guidance the Registrant had not produced such information or documentation.

30. The Panel noted that the Registrant did attend today and engaged with the hearing and gave evidence on Affirmation. He did not, however, provide any independent documentary evidence in respect of the information which had been identified as useful to this Panel regarding any remediation, e.g. testimonials, CPD, a reflective piece, or his work history.

31. The Panel noted the Registrant’s evidence that he has not worked in the profession for the past three years to January 2023 and has not undertaken any CPD. He also gave evidence that his current employment is not related to paramedic work and he is still “in two minds” as to whether he wishes to return to practise as a paramedic. It also noted from the papers that he has previously enquired about voluntary removal from the HCPC Register.

32. The Panel determined that the Registrant has not shown evidence of remediation or a sufficient level of insight, nor has he engaged in CPD and/or relevant training.

33. The Panel therefore concluded that there is a high risk of repetition of similar concerns if the Registrant were to return to practice. The Registrant’s conduct which resulted in convictions and a finding of impairment involves the risk of serious harm to patients as well as the wider public interest.

34. The Panel noted that there is, therefore, an ongoing risk of harm to the public, including vulnerable service users, and the Panel concluded that a finding of impairment is required to protect the public against the risk of repetition.

35. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has not demonstrated that he has reflected on the impact which his conduct, by way of his convictions, would have on members of the public and the confidence that members of the public place in Paramedics, or on the reputation of the profession. The Panel noted the finding of the substantive hearing panel that the conduct of the Registrant might concern an informed member of the public, and the Panel concluded that the Registrant has continued in his failure to demonstrate a sufficient level of insight.

36. While this Panel agrees with the substantive hearing panel that the Registrant’s conduct giving rise to his impairment is potentially remediable, it determined that the Registrant has not provided this Panel with any evidence of remedial steps, despite clear guidance.

37. The Panel therefore noted that the public would remain concerned that the Registrant’s failures involve the basic requirements for Paramedics to comply with the laws relating to prescribed drugs and to be trustworthy at work. There may also be a concern about the potential for harm to patients.

38. The Panel noted that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of current impairment were not made. The Panel therefore decided that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the basis of the personal component and the public component.

39. The Panel applied the guidance in the Sanctions Policy and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Legal Assessor reminded the Panel of its powers in respect of sanction.

40. The Panel is aware that the primary function of any sanction is to address public safety. The Panel should also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes maintaining confidence in the profession and setting the proper professional standards.

41. The Panel applied the principle of proportionality and balanced the Registrant’s interests against the public interest. The Panel noted that the sanction should be the least restrictive which is sufficient to provide the necessary degree of public protection.

42. The Panel considered the sanctions in ascending order of severity. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s conduct by way of convictions is of a nature and gravity that the option of taking no action would be insufficient to protect the public and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

43. The Panel considered imposing a Caution Order but decided that it would provide insufficient protection to the public. The Registrant has not demonstrated a sufficiency of insight into his conduct and its potential to cause harm. The Panel has found that in these circumstances there is a high risk of repetition. A Caution Order would not restrict the Registrant’s practice and would not therefore provide sufficient protection for the public.

44. The Panel next considered the option of a Conditions of Practice Order. Although the Panel agreed with the substantive hearing panel that the concerns are remediable, the Panel concluded that conditions of practice would not be appropriate because the Registrant has only recently engaged with the process. He is currently unsure whether he wishes to practise and he has not provided his commitment to comply with conditions of practice. Further, the Panel did not consider that the Registrant has demonstrated a sufficient level of insight for conditions of practice to be an effective means of addressing the risk of repetition.

45. The Panel agrees with the substantive hearing panel that the conduct giving rise to the convictions in this case is serious. Given the current absence of any evidence of remedial steps or any substantive insight, the Panel decided that any conditions of practice would need to be so restrictive that they would be tantamount to a suspension. The Panel therefore decided that conditions of practice would be insufficient to protect the public and inappropriate.

46. The Panel then considered the guidance on imposing a Suspension Order. It noted that whilst the Registrant has still to develop and demonstrate sufficient insight, and the Panel has decided that there is still a high risk of repetition, it was satisfied that a Suspension Order is the least restrictive order and it is appropriate and proportionate.

47. The Panel determined a Suspension Order will continue to provide sufficient protection for the public because the Registrant will not be permitted to practise as a Paramedic. A Suspension Order also maintains public confidence in the profession and upholds the required professional standards for Paramedics. The Panel therefore considered that a Suspension Order was fair and proportionate.

48. The Suspension Order will prevent the Registrant practising as a Paramedic. The Panel acknowledged that it may have a detrimental impact on his financial and reputational interests. The Panel decided that the Registrant’s interests were outweighed by the need to protect the public and the wider public interest.

49. The Panel decided that the Suspension Order should be for the maximum period of 12 months. The Panel considered that this was proportionate because of the lack of remediation and the serious nature of the Registrant’s conduct.

50. The Panel determined that 12 months will allow the Registrant the opportunity to consider the Panel’s decision, reflect on his position, and begin to take remedial steps if he chooses to do so.

51. The Panel noted that the Suspension Order will be reviewed before it expires. The Panel noted that it would be of assistance to a future panel for the Registrant to attend any review hearing, and it would be in the Registrant’s best interests if he makes all of the following information available in advance of any future hearing:

a. A reflective piece which should provide a background to the circumstances leading to the Registrant’s conviction. In the reflective piece, the Registrant should detail and describe the potential impact of his actions on the Paramedic profession and the public, and outline strategies he would adopt to avoid any repetition of the conduct which led to his convictions;

b. Details of the Registrant’s current employment status and his future intentions in respect of returning to his profession as a paramedic;

c. Details of the steps taken to keep his knowledge and skills up-to-date, including evidence of any ongoing CPD undertaken, e.g. volunteering in the profession, reading periodicals, online training, certificates, resuscitation courses, and/or discussions with other professionals.

d. Testimonials and references from current and recent employers and/or voluntary organisations that he has worked for, detailing his role, responsibilities, and performance in that organisation;

e. Documentary evidence that the criminal sentence has been satisfactorily
completed.

52. The Panel determined to impose a Suspension Order for a period of 12 months. It determined that this sanction addresses both the public protection and public interest issues in this case.

53. The Panel did consider whether to impose a Striking Off Order. However, the Panel determined that a Suspension Order was appropriate and proportionate, and was sufficient to protect the public and meet the wider public interest in this case.

The Registrar is directed to suspend the registration of Mr Simon David Drew for a further period of 12 months on the expiry of the existing order.

The Order imposed today will apply from 28 February 2023.

This Order will be reviewed again before its expiry on 28 February 2024.

History of Hearings for Simon David Drew