Mr Darren Cornish

Preliminary Matters
Documents
1. The Panel received an HCPC hearing bundle of 63 pages, the Registrant’s bundle of 17 pages and the Registrant’s witness statement of 4 pages.

The HCPC’s application to amend the allegation
2. Mr Foxsmith applied to remove from the stem of the allegation the words “..your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct in that..” as these words also appeared in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the allegation. Mr Foxsmith submitted no prejudice would be caused to the Registrant and it was a matter of removing the duplication. Mr Buxton, on behalf of the Registrant, raised no objection.

3. The Panel took legal advice. On the basis that the proposed amendment made no substantive change to the allegation, the Panel was satisfied that no prejudice or unfairness would be caused to the Registrant and agreed that the amendment should be made.

Response to the allegation
4. Mr Buxton stated that the Registrant admitted the facts alleged at particulars 1a, 1b and 2 of the allegation.

5. The Panel noted the admissions and noted that it would take these into account when considering its decision in due course.

Background
6. The Registrant is a registered Paramedic who is employed by CRG Medical Services (“CRG”). CRG works collaboratively with Dorset Police Custody Suite to provide healthcare services to detainees. The Registrant worked at the Dorset Police Custody Suite in the capacity of a Paramedic.

7. The circumstances leading to the HCPC’s allegations were that on 21 June 2020, the Registrant received a WhatsApp message from a friend, Person B, whilst on duty at the Dorset Police Custody Suite. He subsequently showed the message to Colleague A, the Custody Sergeant. The message contained an attachment with an image depicting a caricature of Kermit the Frog with black skin and black Afro hair and with the caption “Kermit the Wog”. Colleague A advised the Registrant to delete the image, stating that it was inappropriate. Colleague A reported the incident to a colleague Police Inspector who in turn reported the matter to CRG.

8. An investigation into the matter was undertaken by CRG and subsequently, on 7 July 2020, the Registrant was the subject of a disciplinary hearing.

9. On 17 November 2020 the HCPC received a fitness to practise self-referral from the Registrant in which he informed the HCPC of the disciplinary proceedings which had taken place on 7 July 2020.

10. During this period the Registrant was subject to a Conditions of Practice Order which had been imposed by an HCPC panel in relation to a different fitness to practise matter. The Order was imposed on the Registrant’s registration on 10 October 2019, for a period of two years. Condition 10 of the Order stated:
“You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer”.

11. The HCPC allegation was that the Registrant did not inform the HCPC of the disciplinary matter as required by Condition 10 in a timely manner. He did not do so until his email of 17 November 2020.

12. On 17 June 2021, an Investigating Committee Panel of the HCPC determined that the matter should be referred to the Conduct and Competence Committee.

The HCPC’s case
Evidence of Colleague A
13. Colleague A is currently employed by Dorset Police as a Police Inspector. At the time of the incident in question, he worked as a Custody Sergeant, a role which he had held since 2016.

14. Colleague A’s evidence was that the Registrant worked in the custody suite providing healthcare services to persons in custody. In his role the Registrant dealt with medical issues for detained individuals and also supported evidence gathering when necessary. Colleague A and the Registrant worked together between two and four days a week. Their relationship was professional and Colleague A only knew the Registrant through work.

15. Colleague A said that on 21 June 2020, he and the Registrant were working together in the custody suite. The Registrant approached Colleague A at the custody desk and showed him an offensive image on his phone. Colleague A said that the image was of Kermit the Frog with black skin instead of green and with Afro hair or dreadlocks. There was a caption, “Kermit the Wog”.

16. Colleague A said that whilst showing him the image, the Registrant said words to the effect of “Look what someone just sent to me”.

17. Colleague A said that he was shocked to see the image and confused as to why the Registrant would show it to him. Colleague A said that he told the Registrant “I’d delete that straight away. Tell them to pack it in. Unfollow. Defriend”. He advised the Registrant to delete the image and send a clear message to whoever sent it to him that the image was offensive and wrong.

18. Colleague A said that he was horrified by the image which the Registrant had shown him and therefore went the Registrant’s office thirty minutes later and asked who had sent the image to him. Colleague A said that the Registrant stated that the image that sent to him by a friend, Person B, who worked at an ambulance station in London.

19. Colleague A said that the Registrant approached the custody desk shortly after this conversation and shared that he had sent similar images to his friend, Person B. Colleague A said that he responded by saying “If you think that is acceptable you shouldn’t be working for the police”. He said that the Registrant accepted the image was wrong.

20. Colleague A told the Panel that in his twenty years as a police officer he had never seen anything like this image in the course of his work and for some days afterwards he was in a state of disbelief.

21. Colleague A said that he was concerned about the image the Registrant had shown him and therefore escalated the matter to Inspector JC. He referred to an email which he had sent to JC regarding his interactions with the Registrant.

22. Colleague A said that when he worked with the Registrant he had found him to be an open and honest person and a great healthcare professional. He said that his overriding impression of the Registrant was that he was friendly and he related well to colleagues and the detained individuals in the custody suite. He said that he was “gutted” and upset that the Registrant had possession of such an offensive image and had felt it appropriate to show the image to him. He said that he had blocked the Registrant’s contact on social media.

23. Colleague A said that he had never previously been aware of any racist behaviour by the Registrant. He said that the Registrant used his professional judgment appropriately and had a very good manner.

24. Colleague A said that he thought that when the Registrant initially approached him, he seemed slightly awkward and might have been shocked or confused and seeking his (Colleague A’s) advice. However, having reflected on the matter since, he now wondered if the Registrant had been “testing the water”.

25. In respect of his evidence that the Registrant said that he had previously sent “similar” messages to Person B, it was put to Colleague A that the Registrant had not intended to mean similar racist images. Colleague A confirmed that he had understood this to mean similar images to the one shown to him. He said this was why he had responded that if so, the Registrant should not be working for the police.

Evidence of LJ
26. LJ stated that she has been employed by CRG as the Clinical Lead since 2018. She stated that CRG is a private medical company which provides healthcare services to organisations such as the police service. She confirmed she was the Registrant’s line manager at the time of the incident.

27. LJ said that she met the Registrant when she interviewed him for his Paramedic role with CRG and that he commenced employment on 13 May 2019. She stated that in his role as a Paramedic at the police station the Registrant provided healthcare services to detainees, including monitoring them for alcohol and drug referrals and undertaking forensic sampling for alleged sexual offences.

28. LJ said that on 21 June 2020 she received an email from Police Inspector JC in respect of an incident which had occurred between the Registrant and Colleague A. On the same day she received an email from the Registrant regarding the incident. He said that he was engaging in friendly banter with Colleague A and that he had shared the image of Kermit the Frog. The Registrant stated in his e-mail that upon reflection, the exchange was inappropriate and he apologised if he had offended Colleague A. He said that he had deleted the image. LJ confirmed that neither she nor anyone else at CRG had had sight of the image.

29. LJ said that she undertook the investigation into the matter on behalf of CRG. A formal investigation meeting was held on 24 June 2020. At the meeting, the Registrant stated that he received a message on his mobile phone which contained an image of Kermit the Frog with black skin and an Afro. He stated that he held his phone up to Colleague A who was seated behind the custody desk at the time. He stated that Colleague A later questioned him in the medical room as to who had sent the image.

30. The Registrant said he had expressed remorse to Colleague A and to Inspector JC and he apologised during the meeting.

31. LJ stated that no notes of the investigation meeting had been made. She confirmed that a disciplinary hearing regarding the matter was held on 7 July 2020 and referred to a copy of the disciplinary hearing outcome letter of the same date in the hearing bundle.

32. LJ stated that she had been aware that the Registrant was subject to an HCPC Conditions of Practice Order at this time as part of which he was expected to inform the HCPC of any internal investigation concerning his fitness to practise. She said he had been completely open with CRG about the Order when he commenced employment there.
33. LJ stated that at the time of the internal investigation, she engaged in discussion regarding the HCPC matter with the Registrant. She said that she understood that the Registrant was liaising with the HCPC in relation to this and that she expected him to inform the HCPC of CRG’s investigation.

34. LJ stated that a few weeks to a month after the disciplinary hearing, the Registrant told her that he had forgotten to inform the HCPC of CRG’s investigation concerning the image.

35. LJ said that the decision whether to make a referral to the HCPC concerning the disciplinary matter would have been made by CRG’s Head of Clinical Governance. She had commented in her investigation report that this would not be necessary, but this was her own view and she was not able to identify any criteria by which she had reached that conclusion.

Evidence of Person B
36. Person B stated that she is currently employed as an Emergency Medical Technician. As such, she is not a registered Paramedic.

37. Person B stated that she first met the Registrant over 10 years ago at work and that they developed a friendship. They exchanged numbers and he occasionally sent her photos of his children on WhatsApp. Person B stated that from time to time they shared text messages about their families and occasionally jokes. Person B said that a few years ago, her friendship with the Registrant had become more distant as he had moved back to Cornwall.

38. Person B stated that in the summer of 2020, she was sent a WhatsApp picture of Kermit the frog with an Afro. Underneath the picture where the words “Kermit the Wog”. Person B stated that without thinking or taking into consideration the severity and implications of the picture, she forwarded it to the Registrant out of habit. She then deleted the picture.

39. Person B said she had not spoken to the Registrant since she was made aware of this incident.

40. In giving oral evidence to the Panel, Person B stated that she could not remember how she came across the image which she forwarded to the Registrant. When asked why she sent it to the Registrant she said it was just a habit to send him photos, memes or other attachments which were often jokes or of a humorous nature. Person B agreed that the image she sent to the Registrant was racially offensive and she regretted sending the image to him.

41. Person B confirmed that she had been subject to an investigation regarding this matter by her own employer and received a “first reminder” which amounts to an informal warning for a period of 12 months. She said she would never send an image of this type again. When asked if she had sent images of a similar nature before, Person B said she could honestly not remember.

Evidence of AM
42. The Panel received the witness statement of AM. AM is employed by the HCPC as a Registrations Manager. His witness statement confirmed that on 17 November 2020 the Registrant made a self-referral to the HCPC by email, advising that he had received the outcome of a disciplinary investigation by his employer, CRG, on 7 July 2020.

43. AM’s statement confirmed that on 10 October 2019, a Conditions of Practice Order was imposed in respect of the Registrant’s registration by an HCPC panel. He confirmed that the Order required the Registrant to advise the HCPC if he was the subject of a disciplinary investigation by his employer.

44. The statement of AM confirmed that at no time prior to 17 November 2020 had the Registrant advised the HCPC that he was subject to a disciplinary investigation. It also confirmed that following his self-referral to the HCPC, the Registrant told the HCPC that he was unaware that he was required to report this matter to the HCPC until he was advised to do so by his legal representative.

The Registrant’s case
Evidence of the Registrant
45. The Registrant adopted his witness statement dated 28 April 2023. The Registrant stated that he has been a registered Paramedic since April 2006. He had wanted to be a paramedic since a very young age. He currently works in a police custody suite as a healthcare professional which can be a very challenging and a volatile environment. He also works at an NHS hospital in a busy emergency department.

46. In relation to the incident on 21 June 2020, the Registrant said he was working a shift for CRG and was at the front desk talking to colleagues. The Registrant stated that he was sent an image from Person B via the WhatsApp social media platform. He said that he displayed the caricature to Colleague A. He did not know why he did so, but it was not premeditated. He apologised for offending Colleague A unintentionally. The Registrant said that when asked who had sent the image to him, he replied it was a friend and that he did not know why it had been sent. Colleague A asked him to delete the image which he had just done.

47. The Registrant said that Colleague A later came to the medical room and asked the name of the person who had sent the image. The Registrant gave him the name and workplace address of Person B.

48. The Registrant said that having realised the implications of his actions, he later approached Colleague A at the front desk and informed him that he had sent similar images. He stated that he did not mean similar images in the sense of other images of a racist nature, rather funny memes. The Registrant said he believed that Colleague A took this to mean “similar” in the sense of a racial nature and this was the wrong conclusion.

49. The Registrant said that he is truly sorry and genuinely upset that he offended Colleague A who as well as being a colleague was a work friend. The Registrant said that in hindsight he recognised he should have deleted the image immediately without giving it a second thought. He said the incident has made him even more aware of how he conducts himself to friends and colleagues at work and socially.

50. The Registrant told the Panel that he is remorseful. He has since undertaken an online course on racial awareness. He said that the course was useful in giving him insight and understanding about how actions can affect other people, especially those in minority groups, of different ethnic origin, religion or creed. He said he recognises that sharing such material is unacceptable and unprofessional. He explained how he has reflected on the relevant sections of the HCPC Standards of Performance, Conduct and Ethics and the HCPC Standard of Proficiency for Paramedics.

51. The Registrant said he wishes to think that he treats every member of staff and his patients with the same amount of dignity, respect and professionalism with which he would expect to be treated himself.

52. The Registrant said that on reflection on 21 June 2020 he had a momentary lapse in concentration which allowed a catalogue of events to occur. He said his actions were not acceptable behaviour in upholding the good name of his profession and his personal character. He said he had apologised to Colleague A for any upset caused. The Registrant said that he realised that showing this kind of image to anyone could indicate that he is condoning racist material, even though he was disapproving of the image and is something he feels strongly against. He said that although he cannot control what is sent to him, he can control what actions he takes thereafter. He said he immediately deleted the image and told the sender, Person B, that he had informed Colleague A of her actions and name and address, as Colleague A had requested.

53. The Registrant said that he had learnt from these events. In the future if he were ever to receive an offensive meme or a caricature of an offensive nature, he would delete it immediately and indicate his disapproval to the sender, ask them why they had sent it and tell them that they should never send such material to anyone again.

54. The Registrant said that since this matter, he has not had any restrictions put in place by his employer nor has he had to receive extra supervision or training. He said he belongs to a close-knit family whom he supports emotionally and financially and who depend on him to set a good example and to demonstrate a high level of integrity. He told the Panel he wishes to continue working as a Paramedic providing continuous, professional and seamless patient care to the public, which he still has a passion for and loves providing to this day.

55. In his oral evidence to the Panel, the Registrant was asked to expand on why he showed the image to Colleague A. He said Colleague A was just there, and he displayed the image as if to say “look what I’ve received”, it was no more than that. He denied any suggestion that he was seeking Colleague A’s approval by showing him the image.

56. The Registrant said that he was genuinely apologetic for offending Colleague A and was truly sorry as it was not his intention. He accepted Colleague A had appeared really shocked and now recognised that he needed to think before he acted. He recognised that he should have deleted the message immediately and not shown it to Colleague A.

57. The Registrant said he had no idea why Person B had sent the image to him. He said when he told Colleague A, he had sent similar images to Person B, he was referring to funny memes and not racially offensive images. He said he had never sent any racial images to anybody.

58. The Registrant confirmed that LJ was his supervisor under the HCPC Conditions of Practice Order. He recalled her saying that the matter did not need to be referred to the HCPC and he took this to mean he did not need to inform the HCPC and so did not act on Condition 10. He said he genuinely forgot about the matter and it was a genuine mistake on his part. He told the Panel that he would never repeat this conduct and the risk of it occurring again was minimal.

59. The Registrant described the three-hour Racial Awareness on-line course he had undertaken on 21 March 2023. He found it very insightful and it improved his understanding of equality and diversity. The Registrant assured the Panel that in his practice as a Paramedic he had met and dealt with many people from ethnic minority backgrounds and he treated everybody the same, regardless of their background. He said he had also in the intervening period discussed and reflected upon these issues with colleagues including, for example, a Mauritian colleague.

Submissions
The HCPC’s submissions
60. In relation to the facts, Mr Foxsmith reminded the Panel that the Registrant had made admissions and these were consistent with the evidence and were made with the benefit of legal advice. He submitted that the HCPC’s witnesses gave credible coherent and consistent evidence and their veracity was not challenged. Mr Foxsmith submitted that the Panel should find the facts proved.

61. On the issue of misconduct, Mr Foxsmith submitted that the Registrant had admitted that his conduct fell below the standard expected and referred to relevant HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics at paragraphs 2 and 9.

62. Mr Foxsmith submitted that the sharing of images could undermine public confidence in the profession. He submitted that Standard 9 which concerns the obligation to inform the HCPC of disciplinary matters also captures the spirit of not complying with an HCPC Conditions of Practice Order. Mr Foxsmith noted that in relation to the non-reporting alleged in particular 2, there is no allegation that the non-reporting was dishonest.

63. Mr Foxsmith accepted that particular 1b alleged “advising” Colleague A that similar images had previously been sent. He commented there was a dispute as to what the Registrant had meant by the word “similar”. However, in relation to the wording of this particular, Mr Foxsmith said he was hesitant to submit that the act of “advising” a colleague as alleged could be sufficiently serious to amount to misconduct. However, this would be a matter for the Panel to determine.

64. In his submissions on current impairment Mr Foxsmith referred the Panel to the guidance in the HCPC Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment (“the Practice Note”). Mr Foxsmith said there was no suggestion of a risk to patients in this case and he acknowledged the evidence from the Registrant’s professional colleagues as to his good standard of clinical performance. There were no clinical concerns, indeed there was testimony to the contrary.

65. In respect of the personal component, Mr Foxsmith submitted that there is some evidence of insight, expression of regret and remorse, but it was for the Panel to determine whether this was sufficient to support a contention that there is no impairment in relation to the personal element. He observed that the racial awareness course undertaken by the Registrant was almost three years after the incident and shortly before this hearing.
66. In relation to the public component, Mr Foxsmith referred to the professional standards expected of HCPC registrants. He submitted that registrants are expected to act not only with professional competence but with decency. Further, the profession must be seen to be regulated properly and transparently. Mr Foxsmith submitted that undoubtedly, public confidence would be undermined if members of the public heard of or saw an abhorrent image of this nature being shared in the workplace. Members of the public would be shocked if a finding of impairment were not made in such circumstances. Mr Foxsmith submitted that the public would also be shocked that the requirement of the Conditions of Practice Order was ignored. The best that the Registrant could say was that he forgot to notify the HCPC. The efficacy of HCPC regulation would be undermined if such conditions were ignored.

67. Mr Foxsmith submitted that the Panel should find impairment on the public component but that the personal component was slightly more nuanced and was a matter for the Panel.

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant
68. Mr Buxton reminded the Panel that the Registrant had accepted the factual allegations from the outset. He said that, to his credit, the Registrant acknowledged that his behaviour in both areas involved falling far short of what would be regarded as proper and that the Registrant accepted that he did not maintain the proper standards of a registered HCPC professional. Misconduct must be serious and this was a matter for the Panel’s judgment.

69. Mr Buxton said that the Registrant did not seek in any way to excuse the showing of this highly inappropriate and offensive image. The Registrant had not been able to explain, other than being shocked and surprised, why he showed the image to Colleague A. He had no reason to think Colleague A would be interested in seeing it. It was an unsolicited image which he instinctively acted upon without more thought.

70. In respect of particular 2, Mr Buxton said the omission to inform the HCPC was not alleged to be deliberate or worse. LJ had conceded that it was mentioned in their investigatory meeting that the HCPC did not need to be informed.

71. In submissions on the personal element of current impairment Mr Buxton said that the Registrant had demonstrated sufficient insight into both matters. These were self-evidently remediable matters. This was the first time the Registrant had found himself referred to his regulator for a matter of this nature.

72. Mr Buxton submitted that the Registrant has reflected long and deeply. He said that the Panel should note that although the racial awareness course was undertaken relatively recently, Colleague A and LJ spoke highly of him in terms of integrity and understanding of the inappropriateness of what he had done. Mr Buxton drew attention to the testimonials submitted on behalf of the Registrant from professional colleagues. He submitted that these referred to the way the Registrant had always conducted himself in clinical matters but also confirmed his lack of prejudice and racism. Mr Buxton told the Panel that in the intervening period since July 2020, the Registrant had taken the opportunity to discuss these issues with colleagues, which the testimonials confirmed. These included a letter of 30 March 2023 from AW, Clinical Effectiveness Lead for Alliance-Pioneer Group. AW stated that he has known the Registrant for twenty years. He confirmed that the Registrant had discussed the current allegations and their implications with him. AW stated that he has worked with the Registrant before and after these events and, whilst saddened by the incident, stated that he is confident that the Registrant would not stereotype, have biases or be discriminatory to others. AW stated he has spoken with the Registrant on a number of occasions and he has been consistently open and has taken time to reflect upon his thought processes. AW states that his organisation will continue to support the Registrant’s ongoing practice with them.

73. Mr Buxton also referred to a letter dated 3 April 2023 from AB describing the Registrant as one of the most open and inclusive colleagues he has worked with and that he had found the Registrant to be the first to challenge discriminatory behaviour. Mr Buxton told the Panel that the Mauritian colleague with whom the Registrant had mentioned discussing issues was GC RGN who had given a testimonial dated 20 March 2023. GC stated that when working with the Registrant in the police custody setting over four years he has “never shown any racial discrimination towards me or any other person he has come into contact with of a similar ethnic origin.”

74. Mr Buxton submitted that the Registrant has undertaken meaningful reflection and there is evidenced remediation. Insight had been demonstrated by the Registrant’s admissions to these matters, his engagement with his regulator, his apology and obvious remorse. These factors indicate that there is very little risk of the Registrant repeating either type of conduct.

75. In respect of the public component of impairment, Mr Buxton submitted it is clear that the Registrant is considered to be a responsible and highly regarded professional by those he works with. Mr Buxton submitted that whilst in no way minimising the matter, Person B sent the image unsolicited and it was shown to Colleague A, not widely disseminated, and then deleted.

76. In respect of the failure to notify, Mr Buxton told the Panel that the Registrant understands the implications of not complying with the Conditions of Practice Order, but this was not a deliberate ignoring of the conditions and there was no allegation of lack of integrity or honesty. The conduct was an oversight, was poor and fell below standards, but had to be seen in perspective.

77. Mr Buxton submitted that a fully informed member of the public would be satisfied there was no or little risk of repetition in this case and that a finding of impairment was not necessary in this case.

Decision on Facts
78. The Panel considered the submissions of Mr Foxsmith for the HCPC and those of Mr Buxton on behalf of the Registrant. It accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel considered whether the facts were proved according to the civil standard of proof, that is the balance of probabilities. It proceeded on the basis that the burden of proving the facts rests upon the HCPC throughout and the Registrant is not required to prove his innocence.

79. The Panel took into account the admissions made by the Registrant to all the facts alleged in particulars 1a, 1b and 2. The Panel also gave its own careful consideration to the evidence presented by the HCPC in support of the facts and reached its own determination.

Particular 1(a) – Found Proved
You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional conduct, in that on 21 June 2020:
1a You showed Colleague A a racially offensive image you had received from Person B via social media depicting Kermit The Frog with black skin and afro hair, with the caption “Kermit The Wog”.

80. The Panel had heard evidence from Colleague A, an experienced police officer who was working with the Registrant in the Police Custody Suite on 21 June 2020. Colleague A clearly described the image, the picture and accompanying caption, shown to him by the Registrant on his (the Registrant’s) phone. Colleague A’s description was consistent with the description of the image in particular 1a. In addition, the Panel heard from Person B who sent the image to the Registrant by WhatsApp and who also confirmed the description of the image. The WhatsApp image was not available to the Panel, as the Registrant had deleted it after showing it to Colleague A on 21 June 2020.

81. The Registrant admitted particular 1a. He had accepted throughout that he received the image on his phone and that he showed it to Colleague A. He told Colleague A it had been sent to him by Person B. The Registrant has accepted that the description of the image in particular 1a is correct.

82. The Panel considered whether the image was “racially offensive” as alleged. The Panel heard that the image was of Kermit, the puppet character, but with black skin and afro hair. This evidently suggested a caricature of a person from an ethnic minority. The caption to the picture included the use of the word “Wog” which is considered racist, unacceptable and offensive in general society. The Panel was in no doubt that the image was racially offensive. The Registrant accepted the racially offensive nature of the image. The Panel also heard that Colleague A found the image racially offensive and was, as he said, “horrified” when he saw it. Person B who sent the image to the Registrant accepted that it was racially offensive.

83. The Panel considered the stem of particular 1 and was satisfied that the Registrant’s conduct in showing an image of this nature to a professional colleague was inappropriate and unprofessional. This was even more the case when they were at work, in a professional setting and when the professional setting in question was a police custody suite in a police station.

84. The Panel was satisfied that particular 1a was proved.

Particular 1(b) – Not Found Proved
You advised Colleague A that you had previously sent similar images to Person B.

85. The Panel had heard clear evidence from Colleague A that the Registrant had approached him at the front desk and told him he had previously sent similar images to Person B. The Registrant admitted that he had done so. The Registrant disputed what he had meant by the word “similar”, but the Panel was satisfied that the facts as alleged in particular 1b were proved.

86. The Panel referred to the stem of particular 1. The Panel was not satisfied that the suggestion, that the Registrant advised a colleague that he had sent similar messages, could of itself amount to “inappropriate” or “unprofessional” conduct as alleged.

87. The Panel further noted that the Registrant’s evidence was that the “similar” images to which he referred were jokes or funny memes and he had not intended to suggest that they were similar in the sense of being racially offensive. Colleague A’s evidence was to the effect that the Registrant did not provide further explanation. The Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence for it to find that when referring to “similar” messages the Registrant was referring to other racially offensive messages.

88. The Panel found the facts of particular 1b not proved.

Particular 2 – Found Proved
You did not inform the HCPC in a timely manner that disciplinary action had been taken against you on 7 July 2020 by your employer, as required by the Conditions of Practice Order imposed on your HCPC registration on 10 October 2019.

89. Taking account of the evidence of AM for the HCPC, it was a matter of fact that on 21 June 2020, the Registrant was subject to an HCPC Conditions of Practice Order which was imposed in respect of his HCPC registration in relation to an unrelated matter. The Order was imposed on 10 October 2019, for a period of two years. The Order was therefore in effect at the time of CRG’s disciplinary investigation and at the time of the disciplinary hearing on 7 July 2020.

90. It was a matter of fact that Condition 10 of the Order stated “You must promptly inform the HCPC of any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer”. The Panel considered that the terms of Condition 10 placed an express, personal obligation on the Registrant to inform the HCPC promptly of “any disciplinary proceedings taken against you by your employer”.

91. The evidence of AM confirmed that the HCPC was not made aware of the disciplinary proceedings and outcome until the Registrant’s email of 17 November 2020 was received. The Registrant admitted he had not informed the HCPC until this time. The Registrant’s notification was therefore made at least 4 months after the disciplinary outcome on 7 July 2020. The Panel was satisfied this notification to the HCPC was not made either “promptly” by the Registrant, as required by Condition 10 or “in a timely manner”, as alleged in particular 2.

92. The Panel concluded that the Registrant gave conflicting explanations as to why he had not informed the HCPC in a timely manner, stating both that he forgot about the condition and also suggesting that he relied upon LJ’s indication that, in her view, the racially offensive image incident did not need to be the subject of a referral to the HCPC.

93. The Panel concluded that the Registrant was under a personal duty to comply with the Conditions of Practice Order and the requirement in Condition 10. The Registrant had accepted this and accepted that he had not informed the HCPC in a timely manner. The Panel found particular 2 proved.

Decision on Ground
Misconduct
94. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s actions as proved in particulars 1a and 2 amounted to misconduct. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel was mindful that misconduct is a matter for its own judgement, rather than the application of the legal standard of proof, and that before making a finding of misconduct, it must be satisfied that there had been a serious falling short of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics.

95. The Panel had found at the facts stage that the Registrant showed a racially offensive message to Colleague A and that this constituted inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. The Panel was mindful that the Registrant received the image on his phone whilst at work and there was no evidence before the Panel that he solicited the image from the sender, Person B. However, it was inappropriate on receipt of such an image for him to proceed to show it to another person, in this case, a professional colleague. The Panel heard evidence from Colleague A of the impact of seeing the image, that he was shocked and horrified. The Panel concluded that the Registrant’s conduct in this respect amounted to a serious falling short of the HCPC’s standards.

96. In respect of particular 2, at the time of the relevant incident, the Registrant was subject to an HCPC Conditions of Practice Order. This permitted the Registrant to continue to practise only subject to his compliance with the specified conditions. The obligation in Condition 10 was clear. The Registrant had a personal obligation to comply with the condition. The Panel considered it was unacceptable for the Registrant to claim either that he had forgotten such a fundamentally important matter as the terms of an HCPC Conditions of Practice Order, or that he relied on the view of another person, LJ.

97. The Panel was of the view that failure by a registered Paramedic to comply with an HCPC Conditions of Practice Order undermines the HCPC’s regulatory function and the public’s confidence in the proper regulation of the Paramedic profession by the HCPC.

98. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions in particulars 1a and 2 breached the following paragraphs of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics:

Standard 2 - communicate appropriately and effectively
Social media and networking websites
2.7 - You must use all forms of communication appropriately and responsibly, including social media and networking websites.

Standard 9
Personal and professional behaviour
9.1 - You must make sure that your conduct justifies the public’s trust and confidence in you and your profession.
9.5 - You must tell us as soon as possible if:
- ….
- you have had any restriction placed on your practice, or been suspended or dismissed by an employer, because of concerns about your conduct or competence.

99. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions in particulars 1a and 2 fell seriously short of the HCPC’s standards and would be regarded as deplorable by fellow professionals. The Panel found misconduct proved.

Decision on Impairment
100. The Panel next considered whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of his misconduct. The Panel received and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel kept in mind that the question of impairment is a matter for its own judgement.

101. The Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note, Fitness to Practise Impairment, which confirms that the purpose of fitness to practise proceedings is not to punish a registrant for past acts or omissions, but to protect the public from those who are not fit to practise. The Panel considered the conduct of the Registrant, the nature, circumstances and gravity of the findings and the critically important public policy issues, in particular the need to protect the public, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and to maintain public confidence in the profession.

102. The Panel first considered the personal component of current impairment, that is, the current competence and behaviour of the Registrant. The Panel was mindful that there was no evidence before it of concerns about the Registrant’s clinical practice. Colleague A described him as “a great healthcare professional”. The Panel noted the statements presented on behalf of the Registrant from colleagues who referred to his good standard of clinical performance.

103. The Panel reminded itself that the concern in particular 1a related to the Registrant having shown a racially offensive image he had received from another person to a colleague. The Panel took into account that the image was not solicited by the Registrant, he simply received it. However, he proceeded to show the offensive image to Colleague A. The Registrant had admitted his error immediately it was drawn to his attention by Colleague A. He deleted the image and apologised. He has admitted the matter throughout and shown remorse for his actions. He has shown that he understands the impact of his actions not only on Colleague A but on his employer and his profession.

104. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant has sought to remedy his misconduct. He has attended an online racial awareness course. Although the Registrant attended this course relatively recently before this hearing, the Panel also heard evidence from the Registrant that he has been open about the allegation in this case and has undertaken reflection with professional colleagues. This is confirmed in statements from colleagues presented on behalf of the Registrant. A number of which also confirm that in their observation of the Registrant’s practice, they have not observed him to show racist or discriminatory behaviour or speech towards any service users or colleagues.

105. The Panel concluded that the Registrant has reflected on his actions and has shown insight. In all the circumstances of the Registrant’s case, the Panel concluded that the risk of his repeating such conduct in the future is low.

106. In relation to particular 2, again the Registrant has accepted his misconduct. The Panel was satisfied that the Registrant now recognises and has clear insight into the importance of complying with an order imposed by the HCPC and that the risk of his failing to comply again in the future is low.

107. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant is not currently impaired in relation to the personal component of impairment in respect of either Particular 1a or 2.

108. The Panel next considered the public component of current impairment. The Panel referred to the guidance in the Practice Note. The Panel was satisfied in relation to the first element, the need to protect service users, the Registrant has shown insight, is unlikely to repeat his past misconduct and therefore does not present an ongoing risk to service users.

109. The Panel considered the two further elements, the maintenance of professional standards and of public confidence in the profession.

110. In respect of showing a racially offensive image to a colleague, the Panel found this was not consistent with the professional standards expected of HCPC registrants. It was particularly unacceptable whilst in a professional setting such as the Police Custody Suite to show this racially offensive image to a professional colleague, a police officer.

111. Further, the Registrant’s failure to comply with the HCPC Conditions of Practice Order undermined the HCPC’s ability to fulfil its regulatory function. At the time in question, the Registrant was permitted by an HCPC panel to continue to practise as a Paramedic on the basis that he must comply with the conditions. His failure to comply with such an order undermined the regulatory process and compromised public confidence in the profession and in the HCPC as its regulator.

112. The Panel concluded that members of the public would be concerned, and public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the HCPC as its regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made in such circumstances. The Panel accordingly determined that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of the public component of current impairment.

Decision on Sanction
The HCPC’s submissions
113. Mr Foxsmith informed the Panel that the Registrant was the subject of previous HCPC fitness to practise findings as follows:
• FTP04031 - a criminal caution for possession of controlled class A drug, 2012 - 3-year Caution Order;
• FTP54849 - 575-4425 – Conditions of Practice Order for 2 years in October 2019, health case;
• FTP61233 – 575-4848 - In 2022 - allegations relating to making anonymous calls to a colleague - 2-year Caution Order - expiring in December 2024.

114. The health matter in 2019 resulted in the Conditions of Practice Order of October 2019 which was referred to in the present case and which led to particular 2 in the current allegation.

115. Mr Foxsmith acknowledged the criminal caution matter in 2012 is now ten years ago and the caution expired in 2015. The second matter was a Health Committee case which resulted in the Conditions of Practice Order for two years. The conditions related to health and were not relevant in the present case.

116. The third matter related to misconduct allegations concerning communications with a colleague. The sanction was a two-year caution order which expires in 2024. The matter related to 2017 and so pre-dates the subject of allegation today.

117. Mr Foxsmith said that the recent matter is of a wholly different character type of misconduct from the 2022 matter, but noted that the same HCPC standards were found to be breached, namely 2 and 9.

118. Mr Foxsmith referred the Panel to the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy and urged the Panel to be guided by it and apply it. He acknowledged that the two matters found proved were very different in character. The HCPC did not submit there was any evidence of risk to patients.

119. Mr Foxsmith submitted that in this case the Panel was likely to conclude that a sanction is necessary and referred to the requirement for the Panel to address the question of sanction taking account of proportionality. He identified mitigating factors in the case including insight, remorse and apology. He had not identified any aggravating factors and accepted that the case did not fall into the category of serious cases identified in the Sanctions Policy.

120. Mr Foxsmith referred the Panel to the available sanctions, should it decide that a sanction was required. He said that the HCPC did not intend to make a submission as to the appropriate sanction, as this was a matter for the Panel, applying the Sanctions Policy.

Submissions on behalf of the Registrant
121. Mr Buxton accepted the approach and principles in relation to sanction as set out by Mr Foxsmith.

122. Mr Buxton referred to the Registrant’s bundle of testimonials. He informed the Panel that the Registrant currently works for Alliance Pioneer Group which is a private ambulance service and for the last four months he has worked for them in an emergency ward at Derriford Hospital. Testimonials from AW and AB related to this employment. The Registrant also works at New Witheven Care Home, a facility for adults with mental and educational conditions. He works as a senior carer. The reference from CK relates to this employment. The Registrant also works in Devon and Cornwall Custody Suite for the Devon police service.

123. Mr Buxton stated that the Registrant has also had a first aid business since 2017 and holds a teaching qualification. He works at charity events raising money for Defibrillator equipment for the locality. Mr Buxton said it was evident that the Registrant puts his paramedic skills to the fullest use.

124. Mr Buxton referred to the scope of the findings of the Panel at the impairment stage. He submitted that there were no real aggravating features in this case.

125. As mitigating factors, he referred to:
• The Registrant’s ready admission to the facts;
• His co-operation with regulatory process and at local level;
• He has engaged fully with these proceedings;
• The particular circumstances and the Registrant’s explanations;
• The genuine insight which gave rise to the Panel’s finding that the risk of repetition is low on the public protection issue.

126. Mr Buxton submitted that as different as the two matters are, the Panel should conclude that the Registrant’s insight is full and complete and his remorse and apology is genuine.

127. Mr Buxton said the sanction in this case would be likely to be directed towards deterrence and public confidence, but notwithstanding that the Registrant is currently subject to a Caution Order, in the circumstances of his case, proportionality would, in his submission, be met by the imposition of a Caution Order.

Panel Decision on Sanction
128. The Panel took account of the submissions on behalf of the HCPC and those of the Registrant. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and referred to the HCPC Sanctions Policy throughout its consideration of sanction.

129. In considering sanction, the Panel was mindful that a sanction is not intended to be punitive. However, a sanction may be necessary in the public interest and may have a punitive effect. The Panel bore in mind throughout that any sanction it may decide to impose must be proportionate, that is, it must only restrict the Registrant’s right to practise to the extent necessary to protect the public and the public interest.

130. The Panel was mindful throughout that the HCPC’s overriding objective is to protect the public. It must consider the risk the Registrant may pose in the future and determine what degree of public protection is required. The Panel must also give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the deterrent effect on other registrants, the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process.

131. In approaching its decision on sanction, the Panel remained mindful that its sanction decision must be based on the matters found proved in this case. The Panel reminded itself that it had found impairment of fitness to practise in relation to the public component of current impairment, namely the need to uphold public confidence in the Paramedic profession, and in the HCPC as the regulator, and in order to maintain professional standards. The Panel had not found that the Registrant represented a risk to patients or service users and there was no concern before the Panel relating to the Registrant’s clinical practice. Information presented on the Registrant’s behalf from professional colleagues had confirmed this. The Panel had concluded that there was a low risk of any repetition of either of the types of misconduct found proved, i.e. the showing of the racially offensive image to a colleague and the delay in informing the HCPC of the employer disciplinary matter.

132. At this, sanction, stage of the hearing, the Panel had been informed of three previous findings in the Registrant’s HCPC fitness to practise history. It was necessary for the Panel to address to what extent these previous matters were relevant to its decision on sanction.

133. In respect of the criminal caution in 2012, the Panel considered this matter was of a historic nature, being over ten years ago, and was not related to the same type of conduct as in the present case. The Panel concluded it had minimal relevance to the present matter.

134. The matter in 2019 related to a health issue. The Panel had been informed that the Registrant was no longer subject to the Conditions of Practice Order and has recovered his health. Again, the Panel concluded this matter had minimal significance for its current decision on sanction.

135. The 2022 matter related to a misconduct finding. The incidents in question in that case appeared to pre-date events in the present case, having taken place in 2017. The Panel had heard that the misconduct in question was a very different character from that in the present case. However, this matter had some relevance, to the extent that breaches of the same HCPC standards were found. It was also a recent regulatory finding against the Registrant.

136. The Panel proceeded to consider aggravating and mitigating factors. The Panel concluded that the only aggravating factor present was the Registrant’s previous fitness to practise history, namely the 2022 misconduct finding. The Registrant currently remains subject to the Caution imposed in that case until December 2024.

137. The Panel considered there were several mitigating factors:
• The Panel had found that the Registrant had demonstrated insight, remorse and apologised;
• He had made admissions at this hearing and, in relation to particular 1a, had promptly accepted culpability at the time of the incident;
• He had undertaken remediation in respect of his awareness of racial issues;
• Testimonial evidence had been presented from past and current colleagues of the Registrant. Whilst the Panel was aware that personal mitigation is generally given less weight in regulatory proceedings, it was mindful that this evidence attested to the Registrant’s current good standard of clinical practice as a Paramedic.

138. The Panel acknowledged that the Registrant has engaged with the HCPC proceedings although this is expected of him as an HCPC registrant.

139. The Panel proceeded to consider against this background whether a sanction was required. The Panel concluded that neither mediation nor a decision to take no action would address its concerns in this case in relation to the need to uphold public confidence and to maintain professional standards. Neither option would have the appropriate deterrent effect in relation to other HCPC registrants.

140. The Panel next considered a Caution Order, which it was mindful may be imposed for a period of between one and five years. The Panel referred to the Sanctions Policy at paragraphs 101 and 102. The Panel concluded that a number of the factors indicating a Caution were present: namely, the two matters, being of different characters, were isolated in that there had been no further repetition of either type of misconduct. The Panel had concluded there was a low risk of repetition. The Registrant had shown good insight and had undertaken remediation.

141. The Panel concluded, given the basis of its impairment finding which related to the need to maintain public confidence and uphold standards, conditions of practice were not workable in this case and would not provide the required deterrent effect.

142. The Panel considered that paragraph 102 of the Sanctions Guidance was relevant, in that it was of the view that in this case, given the basis of the Panel’s impairment finding, meaningful practice restrictions could not be imposed.

143. The Panel gave careful and anxious consideration to whether a period of suspension from practice was required. Given the specific context of the racially offensive image, in relation to that matter alone the Panel may have considered that a Caution Order for a short period would have been proportionate. However, the Panel had to take into account that the issue of the delay in informing the HCPC of the disciplinary matter was serious, and was aggravated by the previous history in relation to the 2022 misconduct finding.

144. The Panel was mindful that a number of the factors indicating suspension (as shown at paragraph 121) were present. The Panel ultimately concluded that in this case, because the impairment was not based on the need to protect patients and the public, and because it had found there was no real risk of repetition of the conduct found proved in the allegations in this case, a suspension would be disproportionate. The Panel was also mindful that a period of suspension, even if short, would deprive the public of a useful Paramedic practitioner about whose practice in relation to patient care there were no concerns.

145. The Panel concluded that the objectives of maintaining public confidence, upholding professional standards and deterring similar conduct by other registrants would be more appropriately, and proportionately, achieved by the imposition of a Caution Order for a substantial period. The Panel concluded that a Caution for a period of five years in this case would achieve these objectives.

146. The Panel therefore determined to impose a Caution Order in relation to the Registrant for a period of five years.

The Registrar is directed to annotate the Register entry of Mr Darren Cornish with a caution which is to remain on the Register for a period of 5 years from the date this Order comes into effect.

Right of Appeal
You may appeal to the High Court in England and Wales against the Panel’s decision and the order it has made against you.

Under Article 29(10) of the Health Professions Order 2001, any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date when this notice is served on you. The Panel’s order will not take effect until the appeal period has expired or, if you appeal, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.

History of Hearings for Mr Darren Cornish