John R Dunwell

Preliminary Matters

1. The Panel has been convened, primarily for a consensual disposal hearing which, if agreed to by the Panel would bring to an end the HCPC’s proceedings against the Registrant, Mr John Dunwell, a Paramedic. The application, which is made jointly by the HCPC and the Registrant is that the Panel should agree to make a striking off order. As will be seen, it has been necessary for the Panel to consider two other issues.

   Service of the notice of hearing

   2. The Panel was satisfied that good notice of service of this hearing had been served on the Registrant by the email dated 16 March 2023.

   Proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant

   3. The Panel accepted the advice it received that it should be satisfied that it would be fair to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel was indeed satisfied that it would be fair to proceed. In response to a request relating to the scheduling of the hearing, the Registrant’s Solicitor informed a Scheduling Officer on 22 February 2023 that it was not intended that the Registrant would attend or be represented. The Registrant and his Solicitor were subsequently sent the notice of hearing to which reference has already been made. Furthermore, on 19 April 2023, the Registrant’s Solicitor sent an email confirming receipt of an electronic copy of the hearing bundle and stated that they were not instructed to make any further comment or advance any further representations. In circumstances where the Registrant has made his position very clear as to the outcome he seeks, the Panel fully understood why he chose not to attend and was satisfied that his interests would not be compromised by his absence.

   Part of the hearing to be conducted in private

   4. At the outset of the hearing the Presenting Officer applied for a direction that the hearing could be conducted partially in private in the event of there being any mention of the Registrant’s health or of any matter that might relate to possible on-going police investigations. The Panel acceded to this application. However, it should be noted that the Panel did not consider it necessary for there to be any mention in its determination of any matter that required private discussion in the hearing; accordingly, this determination is a public document and there is not a separate private decision.

   Background

   5. From June 2019, the Registrant worked as a bank Paramedic through a company called Rapid Response Medical Services Limited (“RRMS”).
   6. On 17 September 2020 the Director of Ambulance Services for RRMS made a referral concerning the Registrant to the HCPC. In the referral it was stated that RRMS had received information from a Local Authority Designated Officer that the Registrant had been arrested and been on bail pending a police investigation. As the matter in respect of which he had been arrested did not result in a criminal prosecution and does not feature as an element of the HCPC’s case against the Registrant, it need not be further referred to in this determination. However, what it is necessary to state is that the referral included this sentence, “[The Registrant] states that the bail conditions have been removed and the HCPC are aware of this case.”
   7. It subsequently became known to the HCPC that when the Police examined the Registrant’s electronic devices, he had made the covert recordings referred to in particulars 4 and 5 of the allegation. For reasons it is not necessary to refer to, no criminal prosecution of the Registrant resulted from the making of those recordings.
   8. On 28 September 2022 a panel of the Investigating Committee decided that there was a case to answer in respect of the following allegation and referred it to the Conduct and Competence Committee to be decided:

   As a registered Paramedic (PA14635) your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. In that:
   1. At an unknown date around 17 September 2020, you told your employer that the HCPC were aware of the police investigation into your conduct when this was not the case.
   2. On 1 October 2020, you wrote an email to the HCPC in which you stated, “My bail conditions were, not to contact or interfere with the witnesses. And also not to be left unsupervised with a minor. Both of these restrictions were lifted by the local police force to enable me to continue working”, when this was not the case.
   3. On 21 November 2020, you wrote an email to the Hull County Council Local Authority Designated Officer stating: “They agreed to suspend all my bail conditions to enable me to work”, when this was not the case.
   4. At an unknown date you made a video recording of a person undertaking a private act in the bathroom of a hotel in Cambridge and: a) That person was not aware of this and/or b) That person did not consent to this.
   5. At an unknown date you made a video recording of a person undertaking a private act in the toilet of your own property and: a) That person was not aware of this and/or b) That person did not consent to this.
   6. Your conduct in relation to particulars 1, 2, and 3 above was dishonest.
   7. Your conduct in relation to particulars 4 and 5 above was sexual in nature.
   8. The matters set out in particulars 1 to 7 above constitute misconduct.
   9. By reason of your misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired.

   The Panel’s decisions

   12. There are three distinct decisions the Panel is required to make, namely:
   • Whether the HCPC should be permitted to offer no evidence in relation to particulars 2 and 3 (and also in relation to particular 6 insofar as it refers to those particulars).
   • Whether the consensual disposal of the making of a striking off order should be agreed to.
   • Whether an interim suspension order should be made in respect of the appeal period that would apply in the event of the Panel making the striking offer sought by the parties.

   Offering no evidence in relation to particulars 2 and 3

   13. In reaching its decision the Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled, “Discontinuance of proceedings” issued in May 2023. The approach the Panel adopted was as follows:
   • It is open to the HCPC to seek to offer no evidence in a case such as the present where there has been no further information or evidence obtained since the Investigating Committee “case to answer” decision has been made.
   • As this fitness to practise process is not exclusively adversarial, in order to ensure that the public interest is protected, it is necessary for a Panel to be satisfied that it is proper that an allegation should not be pursued.
   • The test the Panel considering should apply is whether there is a real or genuine (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of the case succeeding. In reaching its decision on whether there is a real prospect that the allegation will be established, it is necessary for the Panel to remember that for cases to be proved evidence is required, and that the HCPC would be required to prove the case against the Registrant on the balance of probabilities.
   • For the Panel to be able to form a considered judgement on whether there is a realistic prospect of success, it is necessary for the HCPC to explain in detail what steps have been made to investigate the case.

   14. Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel agreed to the HCPC offering no evidence in relation to the relevant particulars. The Panel’s reasons were as follows:
   • It was satisfied that the HCPC had made full disclosure to the Panel of the circumstances that had resulted in it forming the view that the particulars would not be established if they were maintained.
   • As a proposition of undeniable fact, the bail conditions originally imposed on the Registrant were removed. An email sent to him by the Police on 29 April 2020 demonstrated that to be the case.
   • Subsequent enquiries made with the Police suggested that the removal of the bail conditions occurred because of an administrative error. However, there was an absence of evidence that at the time the Registrant made the representations which formed the basis of the allegations at particulars 2 and 3, (on 1 October 2020 and 21 November 2020 respectively), he knew that the explanation for the removal was an administrative error; there is no mention of the reason for the removal in the email he received on 29 April 2020.
   • The removal of the bail conditions did in fact enable the Registrant to continue working as a Paramedic.
   • Furthermore, even if the Registrant had known why the bail conditions were removed, any criticism of him would depend upon a close textual analysis of the term “…. to enable me to continue working.” Had the Registrant written, “…… enabling me to continue working” there could not possibly be any criticism. In the judgement of the Panel this would be an insufficient basis to advance an allegation of dishonesty.

   The consensual disposal application

   15. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant had admitted the allegation, including the proposition that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of the matters alleged as misconduct. He has also in clear terms requested the making of a striking off order, and in making that request he has been legally represented.
   16. The Panel accepted that there are two matters of which it must be satisfied, namely:
   • That a striking off order would provide a proper degree of public protection.
   • That there are no other public interest considerations that would require the hearing to proceed to a convention final or substantive hearing.

   17. The Panel is satisfied that the striking off order provides a proper degree of public protection; the simple reason for this is that no more restrictive outcome could result from a hearing in the event of the Panel not agreeing to consensual disposal.
   18. The Panel was also satisfied that there are no wider public interest considerations that require the Panel to decline to agree to the consensual disposal. The case has been fully considered, this hearing has been conducted largely in public, and this determination is a public document.
   19. For these reasons the Panel accedes to the application to make a striking off order by consent.

   Interim order

   20. There are two matters concerning the Panel’s consideration of an interim order that are counter-intuitive:
   • One is that there should be any consideration of an interim order before the making and announcing of the substantive sanction. That sequence would ordinarily be required. Here, however, the position is somewhat different. For reasons explained in the next bullet point, a right of appeal attaches to the striking off order. The Panel would only be prepared to make a consensual striking off order if satisfied that there would be a proper degree of protection during the appeal period.
   • The other is that the Registrant has a right of appeal against a decision positively sought. However, the Panel accepted the advice it received that a striking off order, even if made by consent, can only be made under the provisions of Article 29(5)(a) of the Health Professions Order 2001, and when a striking off order is made under that provision, a right of appeal, and the consequential stay in commencement, necessarily attach to it.
   21. The Panel first decided whether there would be unfairness to the Registrant in considering the issue, particularly as he was not present. The Panel concluded that there would be no unfairness to the Registrant. If made, an interim suspension order would impose no greater restriction than that to which he is currently subject by the pre-hearing interim order (which will necessarily fall upon the making of the striking off order), and no greater restriction than that he seeks by the striking off order.
   22. Having carefully considered the matter, the Panel concluded that an interim suspension order is required, the same being necessary for protection of members of the public and, given the serious matters admitted by the Registrant, otherwise in the public interest. Conditions of practice imposed on an interim basis would not sufficiently address these factors. Furthermore, although it would not be expected that the Registrant would appeal an outcome he seeks, given that he has a right of appeal, were he to exercise it, an appeal could take at 18 months to be resolved. For that reason, the Panel makes the interim order for a period of 18 months.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of John R. Dunwell from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. The Panel decided that this Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months to allow sufficient time for any appeal to be made. 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) upon the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for John R Dunwell