Brian E Carlin

Preliminary Matters

Service

1. The Panel has seen an unredacted email dated 10 October 2023 sent to the Registrant at his registered email address. The email sets out the date of this hearing and that it is to be conducted by video conference. The Panel has also seen a Proof of Service statement, also dated 10 October 2023, from one of the HCPTS Scheduling Team confirming that the email was sent to the Registrant’s email address on the same date.

2. The Panel noted that while the notice of hearing does give the dates of the hearing, it does not give the time that the hearing is due to start. The Panel has been informed that the Hearings Officer sent an email to the Registrant at his registered email address on 1 November 2023 in which she too referred to the dates of the hearing but not the start time. The Registrant has not responded to either email. The Panel has been informed that the HCPC’s external lawyers, Kingsley Napley LLP, served the documents for this hearing on the Registrant via its Intralinks system, but that the Registrant has not downloaded these.

3. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel considered that it is regrettable that the notice of hearing email does not refer to the start time of this hearing. However, it is satisfied that the Registrant has had notice of the date and the place (i.e., via video conference) of the hearing, and the documents have been served on him in good time. The Panel considered that the Registrant has had sufficient time in which to seek clarification as to the start time for the hearing. The Panel also noted that the Registrant had not downloaded the documents sent to him. On the basis of the documents it has seen, and the additional information provided to it, the Panel is satisfied that there has been good service in this case.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

4. Mr Ive applied for the hearing to proceed in the Registrant’s absence. He submitted that the Registrant had generally not engaged with the proceedings over the last six years and indicated that the last time the Registrant had engaged was at a preliminary hearing held on 14 December 2022. Mr Ive reminded the Panel that the Registrant had not downloaded the HCPC’s bundle of documents for the hearing from Intralinks and he submitted that the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend. He further submitted that as the Registrant had voluntarily waived his right to attend, he was unlikely to attend at a later date.

5. The Panel has considered whether to proceed in the absence of the Registrant. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice and it has had in mind the guidance set out in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Proceeding in the Absence of the Registrant”. The Panel has balanced fairness to the Registrant with the interests of the HCPC and the wider public interest and has been mindful of the need to protect the public.

6. The Panel is satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to notify the Registrant of this hearing. The email of 10 October 2023 states the date of this hearing, that it is to be conducted virtually, and clearly sets out that it is a substantive hearing. The email also makes it clear that the hearing may proceed in the Registrant’s absence.

7. The Panel noted that, apart from one limited engagement on 14 December 2022, the Registrant has not engaged with the proceedings. The Registrant has not provided any reason for his non-attendance, and he has not applied for the hearing to be adjourned.

8. The Panel has concluded that the Registrant has made a deliberate decision to not attend and that he has therefore voluntarily waived his right to attend. The Panel is satisfied that if the matter were to be adjourned, the Registrant would not attend at a later date.

9. The Panel considered that it is in the interests of the HCPC, the wider public and the Registrant himself for these proceedings which began as far back as April 2017, to be concluded. There are three professional witnesses due to give evidence and the Panel considered that their continued engagement is an important consideration.

10. The Panel accepted that there may be some disadvantage to the Registrant by not being present and participating in the hearing and notes that he has not provided any written submissions. The Panel has concluded that any disadvantage to the Registrant is outweighed by the public interest in proceedings being heard when scheduled, particularly where there are professional witnesses who are ready give evidence. The Panel will be careful to consider all matters which are in the Registrant’s favour throughout the proceedings.

11. In these circumstances, the Panel has decided it is right and proper and in the interests of justice, to proceed with this hearing in the Registrant’s absence.

Application to Amend the Allegation

12. Mr Ive applied to amend the Allegation. He informed the Panel that the Registrant had been given notice of the proposed amendments in an Amended Notice of Allegation on 4 October 2023. Mr Ive submitted that the proposed amendments were minor and were to better reflect the evidence which the HCPC proposed to call and to clarify the Allegation in two ways: (i) to amend Particular 6 to make clear which parts of the Allegation were alleged to have been dishonest, and (ii) to amend Particular 7 to make clear which parts of the Allegation were alleged to constitute misconduct. Mr Ive also applied to correct a spelling mistake to the word “known” in Particular 2. Mr Ive informed the Panel that the Registrant had not been given notice of this proposed correction.

13. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice. The Panel has decided to grant all three of the proposed amendments. It accepted Mr Ive’s submissions regarding the clarifications to Particulars 6 and 7. It is satisfied that neither proposed amendment prejudices nor causes any unfairness to the Registrant. The Panel is also satisfied that no prejudice or unfairness to the Registrant can be caused by correcting a spelling mistake, even if he has not been given notice of it.

Background

14. The Registrant is a Paramedic who was a subscribing member of the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care (FPHC) at the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSE) between March 2001 and September 2017.

15. On 14 April 2017, Professor MM  raised a number of concerns with the RCSE regarding the veracity of the information within the Registrant’s Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) dated July 2013 and January 2016. The concerns raised were that the Registrant had incorrectly claimed to have held qualifications and positions with a number of different organisations. Specifically, it was reported that the Registrant had claimed to have graduated from University College Dublin (“UCD”) with an MSc in Emergency Medical Science and from the University of Dundee (“UD”) with an MSc in Medical Education. Professor MM made enquiries to a number of organisations referred to within the Registrant’s CVs in an attempt to verify the information contained within them. Professor MM reported his findings to the RCSE.

16. The concerns regarding the Registrant’s CV included claims that he had received a Fellowship at the Academy of Medical Examiners, that he had held the role of Senior Examiner in Diploma and Fellowship Examinations at the RCSE, and that he had held himself out as a doctor when he was neither a medical doctor, nor did he have a PhD.

17. The RCSE investigated the concerns and on 18 April 2017, the RCSE referred the concerns to the HCPC.

18. On 2 February 2023, a panel of the Investigating Committee determined that there was a case to answer and referred an Allegation to this Committee.

Decision on Facts

19. The Panel has been provided by the HCPC with a bundle of 298 documents (of which some 234 were exhibits). These included:

a. The RCSE disciplinary hearing report;

b. The Registrant’s CV’s dated July 2013, January 2016 and November 2018;

c. Various emails between Professor MM and the HCPC;

d. Various emails between Professor MM and a number of organisations such as UCD, UD, Scottish Rugby, the Academy of Medical Examiners, the Football Association;

e. Various flyers and conference itineraries showing the Registrant speaking at a number of events between May 2012 and November 2017;

f. Two bank cheques: one in the name of “Dr Brian Carlin” and one in the name of “Dr Brian Carlin T/A Immediate Care Training”.

Hearsay evidence

20. The Panel noted that there is a considerable amount of hearsay evidence in the HCPC’s documentary exhibits. This is largely in the form of email responses from a number of organisations to Professor MM when he was investigating the veracity of the Registrant’s CV entries. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice in relation to hearsay evidence. It noted that this is not a case where the HCPC has made a formal application to admit this as witness hearsay evidence as it has not sought witness statements from the authors of the emails it relies on. The Panel invited submissions from Mr Ive in relation to this evidence.

21. Mr Ive submitted that the Panel could rely on the hearsay evidence in the various emails and other documents referred to in those emails as being accurate and credible evidence. Mr Ive submitted that it was unlikely that the various organisations involved in the emails would have fabricated the information they were providing to Professor MM.

22. The Panel has considered carefully whether it would be appropriate to admit the hearsay evidence contained in the various email responses to Professor MM. These responses come from third party organisations and relate to checks made in their respective records in relation to either qualifications allegedly obtained, or positions allegedly held by the Registrant. The Panel does not consider that any of these organisations would have any reason to fabricate the information which was provided to Professor MM. The information comes from professional bodies and relates to factual matters which would have been documented in their respective records. The Panel noted that the Registrant could have challenged this evidence, but he has not done so. The Panel has decided that the hearsay evidence comes from reliable and credible sources and so is likely to be accurate. The Panel has therefore decided to admit the hearsay evidence and to accord it its full weight.

Witness evidence

23. The Panel heard evidence from three witnesses called by the HCPC.

Professor  DL

24. Professor DL is employed as a Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine, Anaesthesia and Pre-Hospital Medicine at North Bristol NHS Trust. He is also the Clinical Director of Severn Major Trauma Network and is registered as a medical practitioner with the General Medical Council. Professor DL has been a member of the FPHC of the RCSE since 1996.

25. Professor DL became Chairman of the FPHC in October 2016, having been Vice Chair from 2014, and before that he served as a representative on the Executive from 2009 to 2014. As Chairman of the FPHC, Professor DL is responsible for leading the Officer Bearers and Executive Committee to deliver the aims of the FPHC for the membership which consists of Doctors, Paramedics and Nurses, and other non-medical professionals. Professor DL explained that the FPHC is one of a number of faculties of the RCSE and that it has a particular role in education examination and setting standards as well as running examinations with the RCSE specifically related to Pre-Hospital Care.

26. Professor DL told the Panel that he did not know the Registrant personally but was familiar with his name. He said he may have seen the Registrant during some examinations at the RCSE or heard him speak from time to time at meetings at the RCSE. Professor DL said he understood the Registrant used to be a practising Paramedic but did not know where he had worked, or when the Registrant had ceased to practise. Professor DL said that the Registrant was involved in a number of commercial activities and ran his own company which was involved in delivering training and teaching relating to pre-hospital care.

27. Professor DL told the Panel that the Registrant became a member of the RCSE and that he was subsequently awarded the Diploma in Immediate Medical Care (“DIMC”) by RCSE in about 2001. He said the Registrant was granted a Fellowship in Immediate Medical Care (“FIMC”) by RCSE in November 2016. He was also aware that the Registrant was an examiner in the RCSE’s Pre-Hospital Care examination but could not say when this had been.

28. Professor DL told the Panel that he first became aware of allegations that the Registrant may have provided incorrect information in his July 2013 CV, on 15 April 2017 when he received an email from Professor MM who was then the Vice Chair of the Faculty of Sports and Exercise Medicine (“FSEM”) at the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland (RCSI).

29. In relation to the entries in the July CV concerning the FPHC and RCSE, Professor DL told the Panel that in 2013, the RCSE did not provide a FIMC to non-Doctors. He said that being a Fellow within the RCSE is a requirement for examiners of the Fellowship, and obtaining a Fellowship indicates seniority, education, and training. Professor DL said that very few non-Doctors hold a Fellowship and that prior to 2016, none held it. This was because prior to 2016 doctors obtained the Fellowship by examination. In around 2016, the RCSE had identified that there was no equivalent of a Fellowship for the paramedic members of the RCSE. The RCSE decided to award a number of experienced paramedic members with the FIMC without sitting an examination. This would then to allow them to examine other practitioners. On 10 October 2016, the Registrant was awarded the FIMC without examination.

30. Professor DL said that following Professor MM’s email to him, he had discussed the concerns regarding the Registrant’s CV entries with the Office Bearers of the FPHC and the matter had been referred to the RCSE. The RCSE had started an investigation into those concerns on 19 April 2017 which had resulted in a disciplinary hearing on 31 July 2017.

Professor MM

31. Professor MM has been employed as a Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Wexford General Hospital since 2015, where he is one of two permanent Consultants in Emergency Medicine. Prior to that he was employed as a Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Bon Secours Hospital in Ireland for two years. Professor Molloy is registered with the Irish Medical Council on the Specialist Division of Emergency Medicine. At the time of the events about which he gave evidence, Professor MM was known as “Dr MM”. He became a professor after he had completed his witness statement for the HCPC in July 2021.

32. Professor MM told the Panel that he had first met the Registrant in around 2011 in his role as college lecturer at UCD. At that time, the Registrant was teaching a Masters course in Emergency and Medical Science at UCD. At that time, Professor MM had been employed as a Senior Registrar in Emergency Medicine at Beaumont Hospital. He subsequently became involved in a project relating to the Gulf States with a group from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre (“BIDMC”) in Boston and Harvard University (“Harvard”). Professor MM told the Panel that he had considered the Registrant to be a friend, colleague, and an associate. He said the Registrant spoke well and taught well and he had felt there was “good synergy” to engage in any work with him.

33. Professor MM explained that it was in August 2016 that he had first interacted with the Registrant in the capacity of a formal working position. At that time the Registrant had been employed by the RCSI as an Executive Director in Immediate Care in Sport within the FSEM where he stayed until March 2017. The role of Executive Director in Immediate Care in Sport was to contribute and add to the teaching and administrative activities of the FSEM. At that time, Professor MM was a Board Member of the FSEM, and its Membership Secretary and he would work alongside the Registrant approximately once a month. The Registrant was required to report to the Dean of the FSEM, Dr PS.

34. Professor MM told the Panel that during the time he knew the Registrant, he was aware that the Registrant had held roles as an instructor on various courses for a number of organisations and that he also owned an Immediate Care Training Company.

35. According to Professor MM, concerns regarding the Registrant were first brought to his attention in around 2013 or 2014. The concern was whether the Registrant had obtained a PhD. This had been raised by Professor GC, Consultant in Disaster Medicine at Harvard. Professor MM said that he had completed his Disaster Medicine Fellowship with these organisations and had remained on the Faculty in the Disaster Medicine Fellowship Programme at BIDMC in Boston. He was involved in connection with a project in the Gulf States being set up by BIDMC and Harvard. The project was based around developing an academic programme for Paramedics in the Gulf States, where there was no structure for Paramedic Studies at that time. Professor MM recalled that he had been quite friendly with the Registrant at that time, and he had been aware that the Registrant was no longer employed by UCD. He had provided the Registrant with some information about the Gulf States project, and the Registrant had seemed rather interested in getting involved. At that time, Professor MM told the Panel that although concerns were raised with him, he had not taken them any further.

36. Professor MM told the Panel that his concerns regarding the Registrant’s credibility greatly increased shortly after the Registrant had been employed by RCSI in August 2016. Professor MM said he had mentioned something to Dr PS about the Registrant obtaining a PhD to which Dr PS had stated that there was no mention of a PhD in the CV which the Registrant had submitted to RCSI.

37. Professor MM told the Panel that this conversation had raised further concerns regarding the Registrant’s veracity. He said that he had raised his concerns at a board meeting of RCSI in February 2017 and that the Registrant’s CV had been reviewed in more detail. According to Professor MM other board members raised concerns about the veracity of entries in the CV relating to organisations with which they had connections. Professor MM made a number of enquires with many of the organisations and bodies listed in the Registrant’s January 2016 CV. He produced in evidence his email correspondence relating to these enquiries. Professor MM said that at some point the Registrant had been called in by the RCSI for an employment review and he could not now remember if the Registrant had been let go or if he had resigned.

Mr ME

38. Mr ME is employed by the RCSE as its Chief Executive. He has been in this role since January 2023. His responsibilities include oversight for all aspects of the RCSE and its various faculties.

39. Mr ME said he had reviewed the RCSE records relating to the Registrant and could confirm that the Registrant was a subscribing member of the FPHC from March 2001 to 1 September 2017. He said the Registrant had been awarded a DIMC by way of examination on 23 March 2001. As such, the Registrant was eligible for membership of the FPHC. He was awarded the FIMC on 17 November 2016. This was not by taking any examination but had been awarded after his peers had put his name forward for the award. Mr ME told the Panel that to obtain the FIMC without examination, the Registrant would have been required to provide and present evidence relating to his experience and skills. The RCSE had reviewed the evidence provided by the Registrant in October 2016, and the Registrant took up his Fellowship on 17 November 2016.

40. Mr ME confirmed that the RCSE had referred the Registrant to the HCPC on 18 April 2017.

The Panel’s approach

41. The Panel has borne in mind throughout that the burden of proving the Allegation is on the HCPC and that to do so, there must be sufficient evidence to satisfy the civil standard of proof. The Panel has considered each of the particulars and sub-particulars of the Allegation separately.

The CVs

42. The Panel noted that in each of Particulars 1, 2 and 4, the stem refers to a different CV which is alleged to have been submitted by the Registrant to a particular organisation. The Panel has therefore considered whether the three CVs exhibited in the case, namely July 2013, January 2016, and November 2018, were the Registrant’s CVs.

43. The Panel noted that there are entries in all three CVs which are either identical or very similar. All are in the name of the Registrant. The July 2013 and January 2016 CVs refer to the same address in Ireland. The Panel can see from the January 2016 CV that the email address given matches that of the Registrant’s registered email address. The 2013 and 2016 CVs in the HCPC’s documentation were obtained by Professor MM as part of his investigation, and the 2018 CV was obtained by the RCSE from a third party. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor MM that he contacted a number of the organisations referred to in the 2013 and 2016 CVs. One of these was the Football Association (FA) where Professor MM said he knew the Registrant was involved and where he had, on occasion, accompanied him. The Panel has seen references to the FA in all three CVs. The Panel considered that it is proper to draw the inference that each of the CVs refers to this Registrant. It is therefore satisfied it is more likely than not that the July 2013, January 2016 and November 2018 CVs are the Registrant’s CVs. It also considered that it is more likely than not that it was the Registrant who prepared the entries on all three CVs.

Particular 1 – the stem

44. The Panel first considered whether between 2014 and 2015 the Registrant had provided his CV dated July 2013 to the Department of Emergency Medicine at the BIDMC, which is part of the Harvard Medical School in Boston, USA. The Panel has already decided that the Registrant had prepared the CV dated July 2013. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any witness from BIDMC, or any documentary evidence showing that the Registrant submitted his CV dated July 2013 to them. The Panel has heard from Professor MM that he had recommended the Registrant to Professor GC, the Director of the Centre for Disaster Medicine at BIDMC, in connection with the Gulf States project. Professor MM explained that he had initially introduced the Registrant to his colleagues at BIDMC in early December 2013 when he had asked the Registrant to attend a conference as a speaker in Abu Dhabi. Following this, the Registrant had joined Professor MM for a trip to Boston where he had met Professor GC for further discussions about any available positions. Professor MM said that it was in or around 2014 that the Registrant had submitted his CV dated July 2013 to BIDMC. Professor MM said that he had not seen the Registrant’s CV at that time. He said that he had first seen it in April 2017 when questions regarding the veracity of the CV were raised in response to the Registrant’s application in 2016 for a position with the FSEM of the RCSI.

45. Professor MM told the Panel that Professor GC had asked him on a number of occasions about the Registrant’s PhD and specifically had asked him if he was sure that the Registrant had a PhD. The Panel has seen the Registrant’s July 2013 CV, and it is clear that there is no mention in the CV of his having obtained a PhD. The Panel therefore took the view that it is reasonable to infer that Professor GC would not have raised this issue with Professor MM if he had not seen the Registrant’s July 2013 CV. The Panel also took the view that it is reasonable to infer that BIDMC would not have considered the Registrant for any position without requesting him to submit a CV. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that between 2014 and 2015 the Registrant provided his CV dated July 2013 to BIDMC.

46. The Panel then considered whether the July 2013 CV contained inaccurate information, as alleged in the sub-particulars of Particular 1.

Particular 1a) is found proved

47. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess an MSc in Emergency Medical Science from UCD.

48. The Panel has also seen email correspondence in April 2017 between Professor MM and ME, Manager of the UCD Centre for Emergency Medical Science in which Ms ME confirmed that the Registrant was not a graduate of the Masters in Emergency Medical Science Programme with UCD and that there was no record of the Registrant ever having registered as a student at UCD

49. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any direct evidence from UCD that the information regarding UCD in the July 2013 CV is inaccurate. However, the Panel has already indicated that it considers it fair to admit the hearsay evidence from Ms ME as this comes from a reliable source and as it relates to business records which would be maintained by that source. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV about possessing an MSc in Emergency Medical Science from UCD and it therefore finds Particular 1a) proved.

Particular 1b) is found proved

50. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess an MSc in Medical Education from UD.

51. The Panel has also seen email correspondence in April 2017 between Professor MM and YM, Team Leader, within the Examinations and Graduation Office, in which Ms YM suggested that Professor MM consult the UD website where its graduates were listed. The Panel has seen an extract from the UD website which relates to a graduation ceremony held on 18 November 2016. The Registrant is not listed as having graduated with an MSc in Medical Education. A “Brian E Carlin” is listed as having graduated with a Post Graduate Diploma in Medical Education.

52. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any direct evidence from UD. However, there is the hearsay documentary evidence that the information regarding UD in the CV is inaccurate. The Panel has already indicated that it considers it fair to admit this hearsay evidence as it comes from a reliable source, and it relates to business records which would be maintained by that source. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV about possessing an MSc in Medical Education from UD, and it therefore finds Particular 1b) proved.

Particular 1c) is found proved

53. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess a Fellowship of the Academy of Medical Educators.

54. The Panel has also seen email correspondence in April 2017 between Professor MM and JBW of the Academy of Medical Educators in which Ms JBW confirmed that there was no record of the Registrant on its membership database.

55. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any direct evidence from the Academy of Medical Educators. The Panel has therefore considered the hearsay evidence that the information regarding the Academy in the CV is inaccurate. The Panel has already indicated that it considers it fair to admit the hearsay evidence as it comes from a reliable source and as it relates to business records which would be maintained by that source. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV about possessing a Fellowship of the Academy of Medical Educators, and it therefore finds Particular 1c) proved.

Particular 1d) is found proved

56. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess a FIMC from the RCSE.

57. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor DL and the hearsay evidence of Mr ME that the Registrant was only awarded the FIMC in October 2016 and took this up on 17 November 2016. Professor DL told the Panel that prior to this, no non-doctors had been awarded the FIMC by the RCSE. Therefore, any reference to this in the Registrant’s July 2013 CV is inaccurate.

58. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV about possessing an FIMC from the RCSE, and it therefore finds Particular 1d) proved.

Particular 1e)i is found proved

59. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Senior Examiner for Fellowship in Immediate Care (FIMC) within the FPHC of the RCSE”.

60. The Panel noted that in the wording of all the allegations in Particular 1e)i to viii, it is alleged that the Registrant claimed to hold or have held a number of “positions”, whereas in the July 2013 CV, the wording in the “Experience” section refers to “Organizations” and “Roles” held within those organisations. The Panel has concluded that the matters set out in the CV as the “role” held within an organisation means the same thing as a “position” held, and that any other interpretation would be a matter of semantics. It has therefore proceeded on this basis.

61. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor DL that only those holding the FIMC could examine candidates for the Fellowship. Professor DL also stated that there was no such position as “Senior Examiner” for the FIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE. He said that he had been an examiner for the FIMC for many years but would not describe himself as a “Senior Examiner”. The Panel has already accepted Professor DL and Mr ME’s evidence that in July 2013 the Registrant not only did not hold such a position, but that he could not have done so as he had not been awarded an FIMC until late 2016. The Registrant could not have been an examiner for the FIMC in July 2013, let alone a senior one.

62. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV about having held/holding the position of “Senior Examiner for the FIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE”, and it therefore finds Particular 1e)i proved.

Particular 1e)ii is found proved

63. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Senior Examiner for Diploma in Immediate Care (DIMC) within the FPHC of the RCSE”.

64. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor DL that only those holding the DIMC could examine candidates for the Diploma. It also accepted Mr ME’s evidence that the Registrant obtained a DIMC in March 2001 which allowed him to gain membership of the RCSE’s FPHC and to use the post-nominal letters “DIMC RCSEd” whilst he held an active membership subscription with the RCSE. Professor Lockey told the Panel that while the Registrant could have been an examiner of the DIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE, he could not have been a “Senior Examiner”, as there was no such position. The Panel accepted this evidence.

65. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV about having held/holding the position of “Senior Examiner for the DIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE”, and it therefore finds Particular 1e)ii proved.

Particular 1e)iii is found not proved

66. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that there is no reference in that CV to the Registrant holding or having held the position of “official spokesperson for the FPHC”. The Panel noted the evidence of Professor Lockey that there is no such position with the FPHC and has no reason to doubt this evidence. However, the allegation in Particular 1e)iii refers to inaccurate information provided by the Registrant in his July 2013 CV and there is no such information. The Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the HCPC has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV as alleged, and it therefore finds Particular 1e)iii not proved.
Particular 1e)iv is found proved

67. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “All Ireland selector and advisor for FIMC/FIMC exams”. The Panel noted that the allegation in Particular 1e)iv is worded “all-Ireland selector and/or advisor for the FPHC’s examinations”. The Panel has considered whether the difference in wording is material and has concluded that it is not. It appeared to the Panel that anyone reading the CV would readily understand that the role is said to be with the FPHC as the entry appears in a box relating to that organisation. The Panel does not consider that the Registrant’s apparent error in repeating the relevant examination as “FIMC/FIMC”, is material to its consideration of this allegation.

68. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor DL that there was no such role as “All Ireland selector and advisor for the FPHC’s exams”. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV in this entry, and therefore it finds Particular 4iv proved.

Particular 1e)v is found not proved

69. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Clinical Lead, Advanced Resuscitation and Emergency Aid (AREA) programme. Premier League/Championship”. This entry appears in a box for the Football Association (FA) UK. The Panel noted that the wording of the allegation in Particular 1e)v is slightly different but does not consider that this is a material difference as all it does is incorporate into the role the name of the organisation for whom that role was held.

70. The Panel has seen a screenshot of the Registrant’s LinkedIn Profile entry taken in 2016 and noted that he makes the same claim to be the Clinical Lead for the AREA programme at the FA – a position he says he has held for 3 years 9 months. This would suggest that the Registrant had been appointed to that role by July 2013.

71. The Panel has also seen email correspondence between Professor MM and (i) Dr LH, Medical Education Lead at the Football Association (FA) and (ii) Mr CE, Head of FA Education in April 2017. This correspondence shows that once alerted by Professor MM to potential inaccuracies in the Registrant’s 2013 CV, the FA decided to conduct its own investigation. In a letter to Professor Molloy dated 22 September 2017, Mr CE informed him that “following an investigation into the veracity of information provided to the FA by [the Registrant], in his application for the post of Medical Education Lead, the Registrant’s consultancy contract with the FA was terminated”.

72. The Panel considered that in the absence of any evidence from the FA as to whether the post of “Medical Education Lead” could also properly be described as “Clinical Lead” of the FA’s AREA course, as alleged in Particular 1e)v, it is not satisfied that the HCPC has discharged the burden of proving that the information provided by the Registrant in his July 2013 CV was inaccurate, as alleged. Accordingly, it finds Particular 1e)v not proved.

Particulars 1e)vi is found not proved

73. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Designer and Director in Immediate care in horse-racing” with the TURF Club (Ireland). The Panel noted that Particular 1e)vi alleges that the inaccurate information in the July 2013 was “Designer & Author of the Immediate Care in Horse-racing course, TURF Club (Ireland)”. The Panel has considered whether there is difference between being the “Designer and Director” or the “Designer & Author” of the course. The Panel has concluded that there is a qualitative difference between the role and experience of being an author of a course and that of directing it. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded that the HCPC has failed in its burden of proving its case that the information it alleges was inaccurate actually appeared in the Registrant’s July 2013 CV, and it therefore finds Particular 1e)vi not proved.

Particular 1e)vii is found not proved

74. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, there is no claim that the Registrant holds or has held the position of “Course Director of the TURF Club medical programme”. The Panel has therefore concluded that the HCPC has failed to discharge its burden of proving its case that the Registrant provided this information in his July 2013 CV, and it therefore finds Particular 1e)vii not proved.

Particular 1e)viii is found proved

75. The Panel has reviewed the July 2013 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, there is an entry which relates to University College Cork (“UCC”) School of Medicine where the role held is said to be “MSc Paramedical Science, Project Team”.

76. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor MM that in about February 2017, he attended a board meeting at the RCSI during which the board members discussed concerns which he had raised about the Registrant’s January 2016 CV. The Panel noted that the entries relating to UCC School of Medicine in the January 2016 CV have been updated since that entry in the 2013 CV but that essentially they refer to the Registrant holding or having held a role within the MSc in Paramedical Science at UCC School of Medicine, as alleged in Particular 1e)viii.

77. Professor MM told the Panel that another board member, Professor MM (who was his uncle), had raised concerns about entries concerning UCC in the Registrant’s January 2016 CV. According to Professor MM, his uncle had worked within the UCC School of Medicine since sometime in the late 1970’s when he had been appointed as a consultant. In 2017, Professor MM was a Rheumatologist and Director of UCC’s Sports Medical Clinic and the UCC Masters’ Program in Sports and Exercise Medicine. Although the Panel has not heard from Professor MM, it accepted Professor MM’s evidence that his uncle had told the RCSI Board that he was not aware that the Registrant had held any role within the Project Team at UCC in the Masters in Paramedical Science. Although the Panel does not have any direct evidence from UCC, it has decided that it can rely on Professor MM’s hearsay evidence regarding what was said by Professor MM at the RCSI board meeting. The Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information provided by the Registrant in his July 2013 CV relating to UCC School of Medicine is inaccurate, and it therefore finds Particular 1e)viii proved.

Particular 2 – the stem

78. The Panel first considered whether on a date unknown between August 2016 and April 2017, the Registrant had provided his CV dated January 2016 to the RCSI. The Panel accepted Professor MMs evidence that at some time in or around 2016, the RCSI was developing a strategy to enhance immediate care training at pitch side, in an attempt to benefit medical and physiotherapy personnel. Professor MM told the Panel that the Dean of the RCSI at that time, Dr PS had recommended the Registrant for this role and the Registrant had been employed at some point in August 2016 as an Executive Director at RCSI.

79. Professor MM told the Panel that after the Registrant’s appointment he had spoken to Dr PS about the Registrant and recalled briefly mentioning something about the Registrant having obtained a PhD. According to Professor MM, Dr PS had said that there was no mention of a PhD in the CV which the Registrant had submitted to the RCSI, and Dr PS had confirmed that the CV referred only to the Registrant having obtained two Masters’ degrees. Professor MM said that this had confirmed a concern he had previously had in relation to the Registrant’s July 2013 CV regarding the PhD which had been flagged up by Professor GC of BIDMC.

80. The Panel has seen a copy of the January 2016 CV which Professor MM produced in evidence. The Panel accepted his evidence that this is the CV which the Registrant submitted to the RCSI at some point in August 2016.

81. The Panel has already accepted Professor MM’s evidence that this CV was reviewed in more detail at a board meeting of RCSI in February 2017 when further concerns were raised by a number of board members, and that in April 2017, Professor MM had made a number of enquires with a number of the organisations and bodies listed in the Registrant’s January 2016 CV.

82. The Panel has concluded it is more likely than not that the Registrant submitted his January 2016 CV to the RCSI.

83. The Panel then went on to consider whether the information in the CV was inaccurate as alleged in Particular 2a to 2e)viii.

Particular 2a) is found proved

84. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess an MSc in Emergency Medical Science from UCD.

85. The Panel has also seen email correspondence in April 2017 between Professor MM and ME, Manager of the UCD Centre for Emergency Medical Science in which Ms ME confirmed that the Registrant was not a graduate of the Masters in Emergency Medical Science Programme with UCD and that there was no record of the Registrant ever having registered as a student at UCD.

86. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any direct evidence from UCD that the information regarding UCD in the CV is inaccurate. However, the Panel has already indicated that it considers it fair to admit the hearsay evidence from Ms ME as this comes from a reliable source and as it relates to business records which would be maintained by that source. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV about possessing an MSc in Emergency Medical Science from UCD, and it therefore finds Particular 2a) proved.

Particular 2b) is found proved

87. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess an MSc in Medical Education from UD.

88. The Panel has also seen email correspondence in April 2017 between Professor MM and YM, Team Leader, within the Examinations and Graduation Office, in which Ms YM suggested that Professor MM consult the UD website where its graduates were listed. The Panel has seen an extract from the UD website which relates to a graduation ceremony held on 18 November 2016. The Registrant is not listed as having graduated with an MSc in Medical Education. A “Brian E Carlin” is listed has having graduated with a Post Graduate Diploma in Medical Education.

89. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any direct evidence from UD. However, there is the hearsay documentary evidence that the information regarding UD in the CV is inaccurate. The Panel has already indicated that it considers it fair to admit this hearsay evidence as it comes from a reliable source and because it relates to business records which would be maintained by that source. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV about possessing an MSc in Medical Education from UD, and it therefore finds Particular 2b) proved.

Particular 2c) is found proved

90. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess a Fellowship of the Academy of Medical Educators.

91. The Panel has also seen email correspondence in April 2017 between Professor MM and JBW of the Academy of Medical Educators in which Ms JBW confirmed that there was no record of the Registrant on its membership database.

92. The Panel noted that the HCPC has not called any direct evidence from the Academy of Medical Educators. The Panel has therefore considered the hearsay evidence that the information regarding the Academy in the CV is inaccurate. The Panel has already indicated that it considers it fair to admit the hearsay evidence as it comes from a reliable source and as it relates to business records which would be maintained by that source. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV about possessing a Fellowship of the Academy of Medical Educators, and it therefore finds Particular 2c) proved.

Particular 2d) is found proved

93. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Education”, the Registrant claims to possess a FIMC from the RCSE.

94. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor DL and the hearsay evidence of Mr ME that the Registrant was only awarded the FIMC in October 2016 and took this up on 17 November 2016. Professor DL told the Panel that as the Registrant had not taken up his award of the FIMC until 17 November 2016, the reference to this in the Registrant’s January 2016 CV was inaccurate as he did not hold the FIMC at that time.

95. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV about possessing an FIMC from the RCSE, and it therefore finds Particular 2d) proved.

Particular 2e)i is found proved

96. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Senior Examiner for Fellowship in Immediate Care (FIMC) within the FPHC of the RCSE”.

97. The Panel noted that in the January 2016, as in the July 2013 CV, the “Experience” section has two sub-sections headed “Organization” and “Roles”. The Panel has already concluded that the matters set out in the CV as to a “role” held within an organisation means the same thing as a “position” held, and that any other interpretation would be a matter of semantics. It has therefore proceeded on this basis in relation to Particular 2e), as it did in relation to Particular 1e).

98. The Panel has already accepted the evidence of Professor DL that only those holding the FIMC could examine candidates for the Fellowship and that there was no such position as “Senior Examiner” for the FIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE. He said that he had been an examiner for the FIMC for many years but would not describe himself as a “Senior Examiner”. The Panel accepted Professor DL and Mr ME’s evidence that in January 2016 the Registrant had not yet been appointed as a Fellow and so he could not have been an examiner for the FIMC in January 2016.

99. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV about having held/holding the position of “Senior Examiner for the FIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE”, and it therefore finds Particular 2e)i proved.

Particular 2e)ii is found proved

100. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Senior Examiner for Diploma in Immediate Care (DIMC) within the FPHC of the RCSE”.

101. The Panel has already accepted the evidence of Professor DL that only those holding the DIMC could examine candidates for the Diploma. It has also accepted Mr ME’s evidence that the Registrant obtained a DIMC in March 2001 which allowed him to gain membership of the RCSE’s FPHC and to use the post-nominal letters “DIMC RCSE” whilst he held an active membership subscription with the RCSE. Professor DL told the Panel that while the Registrant could have been an examiner of the DIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE, he could not have been a “Senior Examiner” as there was no such position.

102. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV about having held/holding the position of “Senior Examiner for the DIMC within the FPHC of the RCSE”, and it therefore finds Particular 2e)ii proved.

Particular 2e)iii is found not proved

103. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that there is no reference in the CV to the Registrant holding or having held the position of “official spokesperson for the FPHC”. The Panel noted the evidence of Professor DL that there is no such position with the FPHC and has no reason to doubt this evidence. However, the allegation in Particular 2e)iii refers to inaccurate information provided by the Registrant in his January 2016 CV and there is no such information within that document. The Panel has decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the HCPC has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his January 2016 CV as alleged, and it therefore finds Particular 2e)iii not proved.

Particular 2e)iv is found proved

104. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “All Ireland selector and advisor for DIMC/FIMC exams”. The Panel noted that the allegation in Particular 2e)iv is worded “all-Ireland selection and/or advisor for the FPHC’s examinations”. The Panel has considered whether the difference in wording is material and has concluded that it is not. It appeared to the Panel that anyone reading the CV would readily understand that the role is said to be with the FPHC as the entry appears in a box relating to that organisation. The Panel noted that in his January 2016 CV the Registrant has corrected the error in his earlier CV so that the exams are now the “DIMC/FIMC exams”.

105. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor DL that there was no such role as “All Ireland selector and advisor for the FPHC’s exams”. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in January 2016 CV in this entry, and therefore it finds Particular 2e)iv proved.

Particular 2e)v is found not proved

106. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the role of “Clinical Lead, Advanced Resuscitation and Emergency Aid (AREA) programme. Premier League/Championship”. This entry appears in a box for the Football Association (FA) UK. The Panel noted that the wording of the allegation in Particular 2e)v is slightly different but does not consider that this is a material difference as all it does is incorporate into the role the name of the organisation for whom that role was held.

107. The Panel has already referred to a screenshot of the Registrant’s LinkedIn Profile entry taken in 2016 and noted that he claims to be the Clinical Lead for the AREA programme at the FA – a position he says he has held for 3 years 9 months. The Panel has also already referred to the email correspondence between Professor MM and (i) Dr LH, Medical Education Lead at the Football Association (FA) and (ii) Mr C E, Head of FA Education in April 2017.

108. As in its decision in relation to Particular 1e)v, the Panel has decided that in the absence of any evidence from the FA as to whether the post held by the Registrant at the FA could be described a “Clinical Lead” of the FA’s AREA course, it cannot be satisfied that the HCPC has discharged the burden of proving that the information provided by the Registrant in his January 2016 CV was inaccurate, as alleged. Accordingly, it finds Particular 2e)v not proved.

Particular 2e)vi and 2e)vii are found proved

109. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, the Registrant claims to hold/have held for the TURF Club (Ireland) the roles of (i) “Designer and Author in Immediate care in horse-racing” and (ii) Course Director TURF club medical programme”.

110. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor MM that in about February 2017 he attended a board meeting at the RCSI during which the board members discussed concerns which he had raised about the Registrant’s January 2016. Professor MM told the Panel that the RCSI Treasurer at that time, Dr AM, was also the Chief Medical Officer at the Turf Club (Ireland) and that he had raised concerns about entries the Registrant had made in his January 2016 CV relating to positions held at the Turf Club.

111. According to Professor MM, to the best of his recollection, Dr AM had said that he was not aware that the Registrant held either of these positions at any time. Although the Panel does not have any direct evidence from the TURF Club (Ireland), it has decided that it can rely on Professor MM’s hearsay evidence regarding what was said by Dr AM at the RCSI board meeting. The Panel is therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information in the January 2016 CV relating to the TURF Club (Ireland) was inaccurate. Accordingly, the Panel finds Particulars 2e)vi and vii proved.

Particular 2e)viii is found proved

112. The Panel has reviewed the January 2016 CV and is satisfied that in the section which relates to “Experience”, there is an entry which relates to University College Cork (“UCC”) School of Medicine where the role held is said to be “MSc Paramedical Science, Project team and programme designer”.

113. The Panel has already accepted Professor MM’s evidence that at an RCSI board meeting in about February 2017, concerns were raised about the Registrant’s January 2016 CV. The Panel considers that although the wording of the allegation in Particular 2e)viii refers to “a role with the MSc in Paramedical Science at the UCC School of Medicine” and does not specify that role, this is not a material difference and the wording of the allegation encompasses what appears in the CV.

114. The Panel has already accepted Professor MM’s evidence as to what was said by his uncle, Professor MM at that board meeting. This was that Professor MM was not aware that the Registrant had held any role within the Project Team at UCC in the Masters in Paramedical Science. The Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information provided by the Registrant in his January 2016 CV relating to UCC School of Medicine is inaccurate, and it therefore finds Particular 2e)viii proved.

Particular 3 is found proved

115. The Panel first considered whether there was any evidence to confirm that the Registrant was either a medical doctor or a PhD. The Panel noted that there is no direct evidence that the Registrant is not a medical doctor. However, the Panel has seen three CVs in the Registrant’s name, and it is not suggested in any of these that he ever qualified as a medical doctor. The Panel is therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Registrant is not a medical doctor.

116. The Panel has also seen from the same CVs that the Registrant does not claim to have qualified with a PhD in any of them. The Panel is therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Registrant has not been awarded a PhD.

117. Professor MM told the Panel that he had been introduced to the Registrant by Professor GB, Director of the UCD Centre for Emergency Medical Science, where the Registrant was teaching a Masters’ Course in Emergency Medicine. Professor MM explained that the Registrant had mentioned to him on a number of occasions that he had studied for a PhD in Medical Education at UD. He said that the Registrant had also said the same thing to his wife and to other colleagues. Professor MM explained to the Panel that he had accepted what the Registrant had told him. He said he had not felt the need to question the Registrant further about his PhD as he had been introduced to him by a senior academic at UCD where, at the time, the Registrant had been employed in a formal academic role. Professor MM said that he believed the Registrant knew he was being represented as a PhD and told the Panel that he had paid to take the Registrant to a conference. Professor MM said that the Registrant would have needed a PhD to stand up in that context. In answer to Panel questions, Professor MM confirmed that the Registrant had never said he had a PhD just that he had studied for one. He also said that only people with a PhD would be considered for a position on the Gulf State project. It was important as BIDMC had never employed paramedics before.

118. According to Professor MM, he had first become aware of concerns about the Registrant having a PhD when he was asked, on a number of occasions, by Professor GC of the BIDMC in Harvard whether he was sure the Registrant had a PhD. Professor MM said he had told Professor GC that he had never seen any documentation confirming that the Registrant had a PhD, but he had no reason to doubt it as the Registrant had informed him that he had studied for it at UD. In his evidence, Professor Molloy said he had not raised Professor GC’s query about the PhD with the Registrant.

119. The Panel has seen two Bank of Ireland cheques, both made out to a “KK”. One is dated the 13 September 2014 and is drawn on an account in the name of “Dr Brian Carlin” and the other is dated 21 February 2015 and is drawn on an account in the name of Dr Brian Carlin T/A Immediate Care Training. Professor MM obtained copies of these cheques in 2017 after discussing his concerns regarding the Registrant with his colleague, Dr KK. He said that Dr KK taught on sports trauma related courses alongside the Registrant. The Panel considers that in having cheques made up with the title “Dr” before his name, the Registrant was representing himself as a “Doctor”.

120. The Panel has also seen a number of documents obtained by Professor MM as part of his investigation into the Registrant in which the Registrant is referred to as “Dr Brian Carlin”. These documents include:

• a flyer for a conference held by the Irish Rugby Football Union (“IRFU“) in May 2012;

• a programme itinerary for the Irish College of General Practitioners (“ICGP”) regarding an event in June 2013 where the Registrant was due to give a talk relating to GPs’ role in immediate care medicine;

• an itinerary of workshops at an event for the World Rugby Medical Commission Conference held on 14 November 2017 where the Registrant was due give a workshop with a number of other facilitators, one of whom the Panel notes was not shown to be a Doctor;

• in an information form from the Royal Society for Medicine – Paediatric Emergency Medicine Section where the Registrant was due to give a talk at an event on 13 June 2017;

• in a news article regarding a two-day annual study session for the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation (“INMO”) where the Registrant provided a talk on anaphylaxis.

121. The Panel has seen email correspondence between Professor MM and NB at Chelsea and Westminster Foundation Trust in April 2017, regarding a program for an upcoming Royal Society of Medicine Paediatric Emergency Medicine Section meeting scheduled for 13 June 2017. Professor MM had noticed that “Dr Brian Carlin” had been scheduled to talk on paediatric concussion and was concerned that if this was the Registrant, he was not a medical doctor and did not hold a PhD. The Panel accepted Professor MM's evidence that the world of Emergency Medical Science is not a vast area and that there are a small number of people within the medical community that teach e.g., life support courses, and that often their names become familiar.

122. The Panel is satisfied, based on Professor MM’s evidence and on the documents which it has seen, that it is more likely than not that the Registrant represented himself as a Doctor and that he allowed third parties to refer to him as a Doctor when he was not either a medical doctor or a PhD. The Panel therefore finds Particular 3 proved.

Particular 4 is found proved in relation to 4i to 4iv and not proved in relation to 4v

123. The Panel first considered the stem of Particular 4 which alleges that the Registrant provided inaccurate information in his CV dated November 2018 to the 3fivetwo Training Agency (“the Agency”). The Panel noted that there is no direct evidence from the Agency and nor is there any email correspondence with the Agency from any of the HCPC witnesses, or the HCPC itself. The only evidence comes from Mr ME who has no direct knowledge of the matter and whose hearsay evidence came from his review in August 2023, of the RCSE’s archived files and documents.

124. The Panel has seen a copy of the November 2018 CV in the Registrant’s name and noted that there are some significant differences between this CV and the Registrant’s earlier July 2013 and January 2016 CVS. The differences are mainly in the qualifications which the Registrant claims to have obtained, and in some of the positions he claims to have held. For example, all of the earlier inaccurate information which appeared in the July 2013 and January 2016 CVs under “Education” has been removed. The Panel noted that this change appears to have been made by the Registrant after he had been subject to an investigation and disciplinary hearing by the RCSE in 2017.

125. The Panel has already decided that it is satisfied that it is more likely than not that despite these differences, the November 2018 CV is the Registrant’s CV.

126. According to Mr ME’s hearsay evidence, the FPHC had obtained a copy of this November 2018 CV from FD from the Agency. The Panel is satisfied that the CV was sent to the FPHC from a reliable source, namely a professional training agency. It was a document which the Agency had received, and which would have been held in its records.

127. The Panel has concluded that it is proper to draw the inference that it was the Registrant who submitted his November 2018 CV to the Agency. The Agency appears from its name to be a training agency and the Registrant has a long history of involvement in teaching and training. The Panel has decided that it can rule out the possibility that it was a third party who submitted the Registrant’s CV to the Agency. The Panel is therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Registrant submitted his November 2018 CV to the Agency.

128. The Panel then considered whether in his November 2018 CV, the Registrant had provided inaccurate information when he falsely claimed to hold/have held a number of positions.

Particular 4i is found proved

129. The Panel has reviewed the November 2018 CV and can see that in the section which relates to the RCSE and the FPHC, the Registrant claims to have the role of “Ireland Candidate selector/advisor for the DIMC/FIMC exams”. The Panel accepted the evidence of Mr ME who told the Panel that there was no such role in the RCSE or FPHC as candidates put themselves forward for the examinations. The Panel noted that the wording of the allegation in Particular 4i does not have the word “Candidate” before “selector/advisor” but does not consider that this alters the effect of Mr ME’s evidence that there is no such role, and it is therefore satisfied it is more likely than not that this information in the CV was inaccurate.

130. The Panel took the view that on the balance of probabilities, the Registrant would have known when he completed his November 2018 CV that there was no such role within the FPHC and so to claim that he held such a role was not only inaccurate, but it was also false. The Panel considered it is more likely than not the reason the Registrant included this false and inaccurate information was that he intended to bolster his CV to create a more favourable impression on any third party reading it. Accordingly, the Panel finds Particular 4i proved.

Particular 4ii and 4iii are found proved

131. The Panel has reviewed the November 2018 CV and can see that in the section which relates to the TURF Club (Ireland), the Registrant claims to have the role of (i) “Designer & Author of the Immediate Care in horse-racing” and (ii) “Course Director TURF club medical programme”. The Panel notes that the wording in Particular 4ii and 4iii are slightly different from the entries regarding the TURF Club in the November 2018 CV but does not consider that these differences are in any way material to the matters which it has to determine.

132. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor MM that in about February 2017 he attended a board meeting at the RCSI during which the board members discussed concerns which he had raised about the Registrant’s January 2016 CV. Professor MM told the Panel that the RCSI Treasurer at that time, Dr AM, was also the Chief Medical Officer at the Turf Club (Ireland) and that he had raised concerns about entries the Registrant had made in his January 2016 CV relating to positions held at the Turf Club.

133. According to Professor MM, to the best of his recollection, Dr AM had said that he was not aware that the Registrant held either of these positions at any time. Although the Panel does not have any direct evidence from the TURF Club (Ireland), it has decided that it can rely on Professor MM’s hearsay evidence regarding what was said by Dr AM at the RCSI board meeting. It further considers that it can discount the possibility that the Registrant held those positions at the time he completed his November 2018 CV. By February 2017, Dr AM was aware of concerns about the veracity of the Registrant’s January 2016 CV, and it is unlikely that the Registrant would have been offered any position with the TURF Club (Ireland). The Panel is therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information in the 2018 CV relating to the TURF Club (Ireland) was inaccurate.

134. The Panel takes the view, on the balance of probabilities, that the Registrant would have known when he completed his November 2018 CV that he did not hold and had never held the positions of (i) “Designer & Author of the Immediate Care in horse-racing” and (ii) “Course Director TURF club medical programme”, and for him to have claimed that he held or had held such roles was not only inaccurate, but it was also false. The Panel considers it is more likely than not the reason the Registrant included this false and inaccurate information was that he intended to bolster his CV to create a more favourable impression on any third party reading it. Accordingly, the Panel finds Particular 4ii and Particular 4iii are proved.

Particular 4iv is found proved

135. The Panel has reviewed the November 2018 CV and can see that in the section which relates to University College Cork (“UCC”), School of Medicine, the Registrant claims to hold/have held the position of “MSc Paramedical Science Programme, project team and programme designer”. The Panel notes that the wording of Particular 4iv is slightly different in that it alleges the inaccurate information in the 2018 CV was in connection with “A role with the MSc in Paramedical Science at the University College Cork (UCC) School of Medicine”. However, the Panel has concluded that the relevant entry in the 2018 CV is encompassed within the wording of Particular 4iv as this sets out a role within the UCC School of Medicine.

136. The Panel accepted the evidence of Professor MM that in about February 2017 he attended a board meeting at the RCSI during which the board members discussed concerns which he had raised about the Registrant’s January 2016 CV.

137. The Panel has already accepted Professor MM's evidence as to what his uncle Professor MM had said at the February 2017 board meeting of the RCSI about entries in the Registrant’s January 2016 CV concerning UCC. Although the Panel has not heard from Professor MM, it has already accepted that he had told the board meeting he was not aware that the Registrant had held any role within the Project Team at UCC as the Masters’ Programme Designer in Paramedical Science. The Panel considers it can discount the possibility that the Registrant held such a role at the time he completed his November 2018 CV. By February 2017, Professor MM was aware of concerns about the veracity of the Registrant’s January 2016 CV, and it is unlikely the Registrant would have been offered any role with the UCC School of Medicine. The Panel is therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the information in the 2018 CV relating to UCC School of Medicine was inaccurate.

138. The Panel took the view that on the balance of probabilities, the Registrant would have known when he completed his November 2018 CV that he did not hold and had never held “A role with the MSc in Paramedical Science at the University College Cork (UCC) School of Medicine” and for him to have claimed that he held or had held such a role was not only inaccurate, but it was also false. The Panel considered it is more likely than not the reason the Registrant included this false and inaccurate information was that he intended to bolster his CV to create a more favourable impression on any third party reading it. Accordingly, the Panel finds Particular 4iv proved.

Particular 4v is found not proved

139. The Panel has reviewed the November 2018 CV and can see that in the section which relates to the Football Association UK (“FA”), the Registrant claims to hold/have held the position of “Clinical Lead for the Football Association’s AREA course”.

140. Professor MM told the Panel that he had contacted the FA as part of his investigation into the veracity of the Registrant’s January 2016 CV. He explained that he had sent an email dated 15 April 2017 to Dr LH, Medical Education Lead at FA Education asking whether the Registrant had ever held the position of Clinical Lead for the FA’s AREA course and setting out his concerns about the veracity of certain other entries in the Registrant’s 2013 and 2016 CVs. Professor MM said he had had a number of telephone calls with Dr LH and with CE, Head of FA Education. Mr CE had emailed Professor MM on 24 April 2017 to confirm that the FA had started an internal investigation into the veracity of the information provided by the Registrant in his CV. In September 2017, Professor MM received a further email from Mr CE informing him that the FA had completed an investigation into the Registrant and had terminated his contract with them. The Panel has seen the emails referred to by Professor MM in his evidence.

141. In his oral evidence, Professor MM explained that the Registrant had held a role within the FA’s medical department training the medical teams who were “pitch side” during Premier and Championship matches. The Registrant had asked Professor MM to become involved in this training and he had done so. According to Professor MM, the Registrant’s role with the FA was as a Co-ordinator. While the Panel accepted Professor MM’s evidence regarding his contact with the FA, it noted that nowhere in the emails do either Dr LH or Mr CE state that the Registrant was not the Clinical Lead on the FA’s AREA programme. It is clear that the FA conducted its own investigation into the veracity of entries on the Registrant’s CV which they had received when he had applied for a position with them. It is not clear which CV this was, or whether the FA terminated its contract with the Registrant over the entry in his CV about his role with the FA, or for some other reason.

142. In these circumstances, the Panel has concluded, on the balance of probabilities that the HCPC has not discharged the burden of proving that the entry in the Registrant’s November 2018 CV relating to the FA was inaccurate or false. Accordingly, the Panel finds Particular 4v not proved.

Particular 5 is found proved

143. The Panel has seen a copy of an email message which was sent to Professor MM (Person A) by the Registrant on 30 October 2018 at 23:12 hours. It reads “……oh dear, do you know what you have done…..”. The subject line reads “damage……..”. The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant sent this email to Professor MM on 30 October 2018 and that it read as set out above. The email has the Registrant’s name as the sender and the Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that it was the Registrant rather than another person who was using the Registrant’s email address.

144. The Panel has considered the context in which the email was sent and received. The Panel accepted Professor MM’s evidence that the email had come out of the blue as he had not heard from the Registrant since about April 2017. The Panel has already accepted Professor MM's evidence that it was around April 2017 that he had started to investigate the Registrant’s CVs, contacting a number of the universities and other bodies referred to in the CVs in order to check the veracity of the Registrant’s qualifications and positions held. The Panel noted that the RCSE’s investigation into the Registrant’s January 2016 CV began in April 2017, and resulted in a disciplinary hearing in July 2017. It was also in April 2017 that the RCSE referred the Registrant to the HCPC.

145. The Panel has considered the wording of the email in context. It is satisfied it is more likely than not to be threatening in nature. The Panel has concluded that the use of the word “damage…..” in the subject box to be passive/aggressive. The Panel considered that the message itself was one where the Registrant did not need to elaborate on what he meant as he knew Professor MM would immediately understand to what he was referring. The Panel also considers that the use of the dots, “….” , at the beginning and ending of the message to be sinister.

146. The Panel noted that Professor MM said he had felt quite threatened by the email, its content and the timing of when it was sent. He said he had understood it to mean that the Registrant suggested that he was responsible for the consequences following the exposure of the inaccurate information regarding the Registrant’s qualifications and posts as detailed in his CVs.

147. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not, that the email sent by the Registrant to Professor MM was threatening in nature, and it therefore finds Particular 5 proved.

Particular 6 is found proved in relation to Particulars 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d) 1e)i, 1e)ii, 1e)iv, 1e)viii, 2a), 2b), 2c), 2d), 2e)i, 2e)ii, 2e)iv, 2e)vi, 2e)vii, 2e)viii, 3 , 4i, 4ii, 4iii, 4iv

148. The Panel has had regard to the submissions of Mr Ive regarding dishonesty. It has received and accepted legal advice as to how it should approach the issue of dishonesty. It has had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Making decisions on a registrant’s state of mind”. The Panel has applied the test for dishonesty as set out in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 (at para 74) [the Ivey test]. In applying the Ivey test, the Panel first decided the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the factual circumstances of his conduct with regard to only those matters which it has found proved in Particulars 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Panel understood that the Registrant’s belief does not have to be a reasonable one, so long as it is genuinely held. The Panel has then considered whether, based on the factual circumstances as it has found the Registrant believed them to be, his conduct was dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary, decent people. The Panel understood there is no requirement that the Registrant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

149. In relation to Particular 1, the Panel has considered the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the factual circumstances when he provided inaccurate information to BIDMC in his July 2013 CV. The Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that when the Registrant submitted his July 2013 CV, he knew that he had included the inaccurate and incorrect information as to his educational qualifications and about the positions he had held. It considers that the Registrant would have known that any organisation or body to whom he provided this CV, would be relying on the accuracy of the information it contained when considering him for employment or a position. The Panel does not consider it credible that a person completing their own CV would not know what their qualifications were or what positions they held or had held. The Panel noted that in the section headed “Education” there are four entries only, and every single one of them is inaccurate, as it has found proved in Particular 1a), 1b) 1c) and 1d). In the section headed “Experience”, the Panel notes that the information about four of the positions he claimed to have held was inaccurate, as found proved in Particular 1e)i, 1e)ii, 1e)iv and 1e)viii. Three of these positions were said to be with the FPHC at RCSE and one was said to be with UCC.

150. In these circumstances, and applying the Ivey test, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Registrant was dishonest when he submitted his July 2013 CV to the BIDMC which contained to his knowledge inaccurate information as to his qualifications and positions held. The Panel is satisfied that an ordinary, decent person would judge the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest and it therefore finds Particular 6 proved as it relates to Particular 1.

151. In relation to Particular 2, the Panel has considered the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the factual circumstances of his conduct with regard to providing his January 2016 CV to RCSI. The Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that when the Registrant submitted his January 2016 CV, he knew that he had included the inaccurate and incorrect information as to his qualifications and the positions he had held. It is satisfied that this is now the second CV prepared by the Registrant which to his knowledge contained inaccurate information. The Panel has already concluded that the Registrant would have known that any organisation or body to whom he provided this CV, would be relying on the accuracy of the information it contained when considering him for employment or a position. The Panel has already said that it does not consider it credible that a person completing their own CV would not know what their qualifications were or what positions they held or had held. The Panel noted that in the section headed “Education” there are the same four entries which had appeared in the July 2013 CV, and every single one of them is inaccurate, as found proved in Particular 2a), 2b), 2c), and 2d). In the section headed “Experience”, the Panel noted that the information about six of the positions he claimed to have held was inaccurate, as found proved in Particular 2e)i, 2e)ii, 2e)iv, 2e)vi, 2e)vii, and 2e)viii. In his January 2016 CV the Registrant repeated his claims to have held three positions with the FPHC at RCSE and the position at UCC. The fact that the Registrant has repeated inaccurate claims in his updated CV suggests that he is intent on continuing the myth about his qualifications and experience and reaffirms his mindset. The other two positions were said to be with the TURF Club where the Registrant had never held any position.

152. In these circumstances, and applying the Ivey test, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Registrant was dishonest when he submitted his January 2016 CV to RCSI which contained to his knowledge inaccurate information as to his qualifications and positions held. The Panel is satisfied that an ordinary, decent person would judge the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest and therefore finds Particular 6 proved as it relates to Particular 2.

153. In relation to Particular 3, the Panel has considered the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the factual circumstances of his conduct with regard to representing himself and allowing third parties to refer to him as a Doctor when he was not in fact a Doctor. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that when the Registrant represented himself as a Doctor, he knew that he was not either a medical doctor and that he had not obtained a PhD. The Panel is also satisfied that when the Registrant allowed third parties to refer to him in e.g., conference flyers or documentation as a Doctor, that he knew he was neither a medical doctor nor a PhD. The Panel noted that when the Registrant had opened both a personal and a trading bank account with the Bank of Ireland, he had done so using the title “Dr Brian Carlin”. This could not have been a mistake of the Bank of Ireland and so the Panel has concluded that the Registrant must have deliberately used the title of “Dr”, knowing that he was not a medical doctor nor a PhD. Similarly, the Panel has concluded from the various flyers and conference itineraries which it has seen where the Registrant is referred to as “Dr”, that as this has happened on a number of occasions, in a number of different organisations, it is more likely than not that the Registrant had either represented himself to them as “Dr” or had not corrected the flyers or itineraries when he had seen himself incorrectly referred to as a “Dr”.

154. In these circumstances, and applying the Ivey test, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Registrant was dishonest when he represented himself as a Doctor and when he allowed third parties to refer to him as a Doctor when he was not in fact a Doctor. The Panel is satisfied that an ordinary, decent person would judge the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest and therefore finds Particular 6 proved as it relates to Particular 3.

155. In relation to Particular 4, the Panel has considered the Registrant’s knowledge or belief as to the factual circumstances of his conduct when he provided his November 2018 CV to the Academy. The Panel is satisfied it is more likely than not that when the Registrant submitted his November 2018 CV, he knew that he had included the inaccurate and incorrect information as to positions he had held. It is satisfied that this is now the third CV prepared by the Registrant which to his knowledge contained inaccurate information. The Panel has already concluded that the Registrant would have known that any organisation or body to whom he provided this CV, would be relying on the information it contained to be accurate. The Panel consider that despite correcting some of the incorrect information about his qualifications in this November 2018 CV, the Registrant has compounded his earlier dishonest conduct by persisting in making false claims as to positions held.

156. In these circumstances, and applying the Ivey test, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Registrant was dishonest when he submitted his November 2018 CV to the Academy which contained to his knowledge inaccurate information as to the positions he had held. The Panel is satisfied that an ordinary, decent person would judge the Registrant’s conduct to be dishonest and therefore finds Particular 6 proved as it relates to Particular 4.

157. In the circumstances, the Panel finds Particular 6 proved as it relates to Particulars 1,2, 3 and 4.

Decision on Grounds

158. In reaching its decision on the statutory ground of misconduct, the Panel has taken account of Mr Ive’s submissions. The Panel has received and accepted legal advice.

Submissions

159. Mr Ive submitted in the event the Allegation is found proved, it was clear that the Registrant’s conduct had fallen far below the standards required of a professional practitioner.

160. Mr Ive submitted that if the conduct alleged in any or all of the allegations is found proved, this would establish that the Registrant had breached the trust of his employer by falsely and dishonestly claiming to have the qualifications or hold the positions set out in his CVs. Mr Ive submitted that in acting as he did, the Registrant’s conduct fell short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The Registrant’s actions also fell short of what the public would expect of a HCPC registered paramedic.

161. Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant had breached standard 9 of the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics and Standards.

Decision

162. The Panel is satisfied that in relation to all the facts found proved in Particular 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the Registrant’s conduct fell far below the standards to be expected of a Paramedic and that it amounts to misconduct.

163. In relation to Particulars 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, the Panel considered that healthcare professionals are expected and trusted to be honest about the information they provide in their CVs. There is a real risk that where qualifications, or experience gained in positions held, are inaccurate to the extent that they suggest a greater level of qualification or experience than is the case, that such a healthcare professional may be appointed to a position for which they are not properly qualified. The Panel has no hesitation in concluding that where those inaccuracies are not the result of a genuine mistake but have been made knowingly and dishonestly, that this constitutes serious misconduct. Although the Registrant was not working in front-line paramedic work, he was involved in teaching and/or training other medical and non-medical professionals in emergency medical care. The Panel considered that it is proper to infer that the Registrant knowingly and dishonestly exaggerated his qualifications and positions held in his CVs in order to enhance his prospects of obtaining employment or appointment to positions or organisations, or to be selected as a speaker at a number of medical related conferences. The Panel considers that fellow paramedics and other healthcare professionals would find the Registrant’s conduct in relation to his CVs to be “deplorable” and “morally blameworthy”.

164. In relation to Particular 5, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that to threaten a colleague in the way that the Registrant threatened Professor MM in the email, falls far below the standard of behaviour expected of a Paramedic. It is unprofessional behaviour and so this too constitutes misconduct.

165. The Panel has considered the impact of the Registrant’s misconduct on Professor MM. Professor MM told the Panel that throughout his involvement with the Registrant, he had trusted that he was who he presented himself to be. Professor MM said that because of this, he had associated with the Registrant and recommended him to other respectable practitioners, putting his own reputation on the line. Professor Molloy said he felt let down by the Registrant who had misrepresented himself on such a large scale. Professor MM said that prior to concerns regarding the Registrant, he had associated with him regularly at the FA. He said he no longer teaches on the FA courses as he feels uncomfortable and tainted by his association with the Registrant. Professor MM referred to the Registrant’s actions having also caused him significant stress. The Panel has already noted that Professor MM had felt threatened by the email sent by the Registrant to him on 30 October 2018.

166. The Panel took the view that the Registrant’s conduct has the potential to impact adversely on the wider public interest in (i) upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour and (ii) maintaining public confidence in the Paramedic profession.

HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2012 and 2016)

167. In reaching its decision on misconduct the Panel has also had in mind the HCPC Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, both the 2012 and 2016 versions as the period covered by the Allegation spans both.

168. The Panel has considered the HCPC’s Standard of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2012) and has concluded that the following standard is engaged and has been breached:

Standard 13 You must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession.

You must justify the trust that other people place in you by acting with honesty and integrity at all times. You must not get involved in any behaviour or activity which is likely to damage the public’s confidence in you or your profession.

169. The Panel considered that the public expects Paramedics and other healthcare professionals to be trustworthy in their personal and professional behaviour. The Registrant did not make sure that his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him or in his profession when he dishonestly submitted inaccurate information in his July 2013 CV to BIDMC. Nor did the Registrant make sure his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him or in his profession when he represented himself as a Doctor or allowed third parties to do so in e.g., in flyers or conference notes in the period covered by the 2012 Standards.

170. The Panel also considered that the HCPC’s Standard of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (2016) and has concluded that the following standards are engaged and have been breached:

Standard 9 Be honest and trustworthy
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.

9.2 You must be honest about your experience, qualifications and skills.

9.3 You must make sure that any promotional activities you are involved in are accurate and are not likely to mislead.

171. The Panel considered that the public expects Paramedics and other healthcare professionals to be trustworthy in their personal and professional behaviour. The Registrant did not make sure that his conduct justified the public’s trust and confidence in him or in his profession when he dishonestly submitted inaccurate information in CVs which he provided to a number of organisations, or when he sent a threatening email to a fellow professional who was conducting enquiries into the veracity of those CVs (Standard 9.1).

172. The Panel considered that the Registrant was not honest about his qualifications in any of the CV’s it has seen, and that he was not honest when he represented himself as a Doctor and allowed third parties to refer to him as a Doctor when he was not either a medical doctor nor a PhD (Standard 9.2).

173. The Panel considered that the Registrant did not make sure in relation to any of the flyers or the documentation for various conferences that the information they contained about him was accurate. These documents were misleading as they referred to the Registrant as “Dr Brian Carlin”, and there is no evidence that the Registrant ever took any steps to correct these inaccurate and misleading references.

174. Accordingly, the Panel finds misconduct in this case.

Decision on Impairment

HCPC submissions

175. Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both the personal and public components. He referred the Panel to the case of CHRE v NMC and Grant [2011] EWHC 927 (Admin) where the questions a panel should ask itself were set out:

Do our findings of fact in respect of [the Registrant’s] misconduct….. show that his/her fitness to practise is impaired in the sense that he/she:

(a) Has in the past acted and/or is liable in the future to act so as to put a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or

(b) Has in the past brought and/or is liable in the future to bring [Paramedic] profession into disrepute; and/or

(c) Has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the [Paramedic] profession;

(d) Has in the past acted dishonestly and/or is liable to act dishonestly in the future”

176. Mr Ive submitted that the answer to each of the questions posed was “yes”. In relation to putting patients at unwarranted risk of harm, he submitted that the Registrant was providing training in a healthcare setting and that it was important that in doing so, the Registrant was adequately qualified so that his students were properly trained. Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant’s misconduct in representing himself as a Doctor and allowing others to refer to him as one, when he was not a Doctor, and in making false claims as to his qualifications and the positions he has held in various organisations, had brought the Paramedic profession into disrepute. Mr Ive also submitted that in breaching Standard 9 of the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics, the Registrant had breached a fundamental tenet of his profession in relation to honesty and integrity. Finally, in relation to dishonesty, Mr Ive submitted that the Panel could consider firstly, that this had persisted over a period of years and was evident in three of his CVs, and secondly, that the Registrant’s attitude to his misconduct and his lack of engagement with these proceedings suggested that he is liable to be dishonest in the future.

177. Mr Ive submitted that the misconduct in this case was not easily remediable, and that the Registrant had not remedied it. Mr Ive submitted that the Registrant had a deep-seated attitudinal problem and was not capable of remedying his misconduct. It was therefore likely that the Registrant would repeat his misconduct.

178. Mr Ive submitted that the misconduct was so serious that a finding of impairment was needed in order to maintain public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the HCPC as Regulator, and also to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour in the profession.

Decision

179. In reaching its decision on impairment, the Panel had regard to the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. The Panel took account of Mr Ive’s submissions. It received and accepted legal advice. The Panel bore in mind that the purpose of this hearing was not to punish the Registrant for past misdoings but was to protect the public against the acts and omissions of those who are not fit to practise.

Personal component

180. In relation to the personal component, the Panel concluded that the misconduct is capable of being remedied even though it acknowledged that it is more difficult for a registrant to remedy misconduct which involves dishonesty, particularly where that dishonesty was at the higher end of the scale. The Panel’s findings show that the dishonesty was repeated over a substantial period of time, from mid-2013 up to November 2018.

181. The Panel noted that it would appear that in his November 2018 CV, the Registrant had removed some of the dishonest qualifications which he had previously claimed to have held. However, it found no other evidence that the Registrant had taken any steps towards remedying his misconduct. He had not removed all the dishonest claims regarding positions that he had either previously held or held at that time. He did not, for example, produce any evidence of attending relevant courses which address issues such as dishonest conduct. He had not provided any evidence that he had properly reflected on his misconduct and had understood how it had impacted on his colleagues, his profession or the wider public interest.

182. The Panel noted that apart from a very limited engagement with the HCPC in December 2022, the Registrant had not engaged with these proceedings since his referral in April 2017. It concluded that the Registrant’s lack of engagement demonstrated that he had no insight into his misconduct. There was no evidence that he had shown any remorse or apologised for his misconduct. The false and dishonest entries in the Registrant’s July 2013, January 2016 and November 2018 CVs could have had reputational damage on those organisations who relied upon their veracity. The Panel noted that Professor Michael Molloy considered that he had suffered reputational damage as a result of recommending the Registrant for positions, and from his friendship and association with him.

183. In the circumstances, the Panel was satisfied there was a high risk that the Registrant would repeat his dishonest conduct in the future. It therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on the personal component.

Public component

184. In relation to the public component, the Panel had no doubt that an informed member of the public would consider that public confidence in the Paramedic profession would be seriously undermined if there was no finding of impairment in this case. The Panel considered the Registrant’s misconduct in this case to be extremely serious. It involved repeated and deliberate dishonesty in connection with entries in his CVs which persisted over a lengthy period. It also involved sending an email to a colleague who was investigating the veracity of those CVs which was threatening in nature. The Panel was satisfied that a reasonable and informed member of the public would expect there to be a finding of impairment where a registrant had (i) repeated dishonest claims as to their qualifications and experience in CVs submitted for employment or other positions, (ii) had referred to himself, and allowed others to refer to him, as a Doctor when he was not one, and (iii) where a registrant had sent a threatening email to a colleague.

185. The Panel was satisfied that it would be failing in its duty to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour in the Paramedic profession if it did not find impairment in this case. Paramedics should be in no doubt that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Honesty and probity are fundamental tenets of the profession.

186. The Panel also considered that it would be failing in its duty to protect the public from a dishonest Paramedic if it did not find impairment in this case. Even though this Registrant does not appear to have practised in frontline paramedic work for some considerable time, he remains on the Register. The Panel considered that it was essential that those who recruit Paramedics for any role were able to rely on the accuracy and veracity of CVs to ensure that they and the public could have confidence that those employed as Paramedics have the necessary skills, knowledge, and experience for the role to which they are appointed. Although the case has not been about the Registrant’s clinical competence as a front-line Paramedic, it has involved issues regarding public protection. The Panel was greatly concerned that the Registrant was training other healthcare professionals when he was not qualified to do so. The Panel considered that there was the potential for service users to be at risk of harm because those taught by the Registrant might not be properly qualified to practise in a healthcare role.

187. The Panel therefore found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired on both the personal and public component. Accordingly, the Panel found the Allegation is well founded.

Decision on Sanction

188. In considering the appropriate and proportionate sanction the Panel was referred to, and took account of, the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy. The Panel received and accepted legal advice. The Panel was aware that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish the Registrant, although it may have that effect, but it was to protect the public, to maintain confidence in the Paramedic profession and to uphold its standards of conduct and behaviour. The Panel also had in mind that any sanction it imposed must be appropriate and proportionate bearing in mind the nature and circumstances of the misconduct involved.

Submissions

189. Mr Ive set out the relevant principles regarding the imposition of a sanction, including addressing mitigating and aggravating factors. However, as is the HCPC’s usual approach at the sanction stage, he did not advance any particular sanction.

Decision

190. The Panel considered the mitigating and aggravating factors in relation to the Registrant’s misconduct. The Panel found that there were no mitigating factors in this case.

191. The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors:

- that the Registrant had shown no insight, remorse or any reflection on the matters found to amount to misconduct and he had not apologised;

- that the Registrant had not taken any steps to remediate his misconduct;

- that the misconduct was repeated over a prolonged period of time;

- that the misconduct involved a breach of trust of other medical professionals;

- that the level of dishonesty in the case was at the high end of seriousness: it was for financial gain in relation to obtaining employment, or to secure positions in a variety of organisations, and/or to enhance his reputation by securing speaking roles at conferences.

192. The Panel considered the nature of the Registrant’s dishonesty to be very serious and concluded that it was towards the highest end of the scale of dishonest conduct. It was deliberate and premeditated, and the Registrant could only have included the inaccurate and false entries in his various CVs, and referred to himself as a Doctor when he was not one, in order to obtain a material advantage, either in terms of a financial benefit or in enhancing his reputation in the small world of pre-hospital medicine. The Registrant repeated his dishonesty over a number of years. The Panel noted that the Registrant had not admitted his dishonesty.

193. The Panel considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. It did not consider that this was a suitable case for mediation. It also decided that to take no action or impose a Caution Order in this case would not be appropriate or proportionate. The Panel did not consider that the misconduct could be described as “isolated”, “limited” or ‘relatively minor in nature’. The Panel was not able to conclude that there was a low risk of repetition because the Registrant had not demonstrated that he had any insight into his misconduct or the impact of it on his profession and the wider public. The Panel was satisfied that to ensure public confidence in the profession was not undermined, it must consider a more severe sanction.

194. The Panel then considered a Conditions of Practice Order and in particular the matters set out in paragraph 106 of the Sanctions Policy which states:

“A conditions of practice order is likely to be appropriate in cases where:

• the registrant has insight;

• the failure or deficiency is capable of being remedied;

• there are no persistent or general failures which would prevent the registrant from remediating;

• appropriate, proportionate, realistic and verifiable conditions can be formulated;

• the panel is confident the registrant will comply with the conditions;

• a reviewing panel will be able to determine whether or not those conditions have or are being met;

• the registrant does not pose a risk of harm by being in restricted practice”.

195. The Panel also had in mind paragraphs 107 and 108, which state:

107 “Conditions will only be effective in cases where the registrant is genuinely committed to resolving the concerns raised and the panel is confident they will do so. Therefore, conditions of practice are unlikely to be suitable in cases in which the registrant has failed to engage with the fitness to practise process or where there are serious and persistent failings”.

108 “Conditions are also less likely to be appropriate in more serious cases, for example those involving: dishonesty”.

196. The Panel also considered paragraph 109 which states in relation to serious cases and the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order:

“However, it should only do so when it is satisfied that the registrant’s conduct was minor, out of character, capable of remediation and unlikely to be repeated.”

197. The Panel found that the Registrant’s misconduct was capable of being remedied although it acknowledged this would be difficult as it involved dishonest conduct which the Panel judged to be at the highest end of the scale of dishonesty. There was no evidence that the Registrant had taken any steps towards remediation. He had not shown any insight into his misconduct and nor had he expressed any remorse or apologised. The Panel did not consider that the Registrant’s conduct was “minor” or “unlikely to be repeated”. There remained therefore, a risk that he would repeat his misconduct. Given the Registrant’s very limited engagement with these proceedings since his referral in April 2017, the Panel had no confidence that the Registrant would comply with conditions on his practice.

198. The Panel also concluded that it was not possible to devise appropriate, proportionate, realistic, and verifiable conditions which would address the serious concerns regarding the Registrant’s dishonest conduct in this case. The Panel had no information about the Registrant’s current employment position or about whether he had kept his skills and knowledge as a Paramedic up to date. The Panel concluded that, given the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the imposition of a Conditions of Practice Order was insufficient to protect the public and it would undermine public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in the regulatory process. It also considered that such a sanction would send out the wrong message to the profession as to the standards it expects of its practitioners.

199. The Panel next considered whether to impose a Suspension Order. It had in mind the following guidance from the HCPC’s Sanctions Policy:

“121 A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

• the registrant has insight;

• the issues are unlikely to be repeated;

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

200. The Panel was satisfied that the matters that led to the finding of misconduct in this case, “represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics”. The Registrant had breached the trust of friends, colleagues, employers, and other healthcare professionals. The Panel was not satisfied that the Registrant had insight into his misconduct. It concluded that the Registrant’s lack of engagement with these proceedings suggested that the Registrant had no intention of resolving or remedying the misconduct, even if he was capable of doing so. The Panel was therefore satisfied that the risk of repetition of the dishonest misconduct rules this sanction out. In these circumstances, the Panel concluded that a Suspension Order was not the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.

201. The Panel also concluded that a Suspension Order even for a period of 12 months would not be appropriate or proportionate to maintain public confidence in the Paramedic profession or in the HCPC as its regulatory body. Such an Order would not send out an appropriate message to the profession about this type of misconduct. The Panel considered that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to hear that a registrant who had not engaged with their regulatory body and had no insight, had taken no steps to remedy their misconduct and appeared unwilling to do so, was given an eleventh-hour reprieve to see if they could satisfy a panel of the HCPTS that they had changed. The Panel took the view that a reasonable and informed member of the public would expect a more severe sanction in circumstances where over a substantial period of time, inaccurate and dishonest claims were made in three different versions of a registrant’s CV which were used to apply for employment and/or positions, and where a registrant had sent a threatening email to a colleague who had instigated an investigation into the veracity of those CVs.

202. The Panel therefore concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was to impose a Striking Off Order. It took account of paragraph 130 of the Sanctions Policy which states that such a sanction is one of “last resort for serious, persistent, deliberate or reckless acts involving…. e.g., dishonesty”. The Panel had no doubt that the dishonest acts in this case were serious, persistent, and deliberate.

203. The Panel also had in mind paragraph 131 of the Sanctions Policy:

“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:

• Lacks insight;

• Continues to repeat the misconduct…

• Is unwilling to resolve matters.”

204. The Panel had already found that the Registrant lacked insight into his misconduct. It was clear from its findings of fact that the Registrant had repeated his misconduct over a period of time, and his lack of engagement with these proceedings strongly suggest that he is unwilling to resolve matters. The Panel concluded that to ensure the public’s confidence in the Paramedic profession and in its regulatory process, and in order to uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a Striking Off Order.

ORDER: The Registrar is directed to strike the name of Brian E Carlin from the Register from the date that this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order

1. Mr Ive applied for an Interim Suspension Order. Mr Ive submitted that given the Panel’s findings in relation to impairment, an Interim Suspension Order was necessary to protect the public and it was otherwise in the public interest.

Proceeding in the absence of the Registrant

2. The Panel has decided to proceed in the Registrant’s absence for the same reasons as set out in its determination above. The Registrant was notified that the HCPC might apply for an Interim Order in the notice of hearing email of 10 October 2023. The Panel considers that the Registrant has voluntarily waived his right to attend and that it is in the public interest that such an application is considered.

Decision

3. The Panel has decided to make an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest for the reasons set out in the determination above.

4. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

 

History of Hearings for Brian E Carlin

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
15/11/2023	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off